Alok Sharma: About 70% of the litter in the ocean is plastic, and I therefore commend the work of my hon. Friend and his young constituents in highlighting the clear and present danger of plastic pollution to life in our oceans. The Government recognise the need for action and for our joint leadership, with Vanuatu, of the Commonwealth Clean Ocean Alliance, and we are supporting technical assistance for countries that are committed to taking practical steps to tackle marine pollution.

Andrew Stephenson: I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to his constituents from Addingham, and to him for representing them in the House so well. The Government will ensure that young people have a strong voice at COP26 in November, so that their views on the climate and nature are heard on the global stage. DFID is committed to involving young people in our work, promoting active and engaged citizenship through our policy and programmes.

Alok Sharma: Our Departments work together to ensure that development is at the heart of UK trade policy. This includes delivering the successful UK-Africa Investment Summit, where we announced the trade connect service. The service will help developing countries to make the most of preferential access to UK markets and support UK firms to strengthen their supply chains in developing countries.

Theo Clarke: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the success of the UK-Africa Investment Summit. What further steps are the Government taking to support British businesses, such as JCB in my constituency, to export more and generate local jobs?

Alok Sharma: I think the answer was given earlier by the Minister of State, Department for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) in respect of the statement the Prime Minister made at the Africa investment summit.

Boris Johnson: The difference between this Government and the way we treat international affairs, and the Labour party under its present leadership, can be summarised as follows: the right hon. Gentleman, as leader of the Labour party, has consistently stood up not just for Tehran, but for Vladimir Putin, when he poisoned innocent people on the streets of this country; he has said that he would scrap the armed services of the United Kingdom, end our nuclear deterrent and abolish NATO, which has been the bulwark of our security for the past 70 years. This Government are leading the world in tackling abuses, sticking up for human rights, championing the struggle against climate change, and leading the fight for every single girl in the world to have access to 12 years of quality education. That is what global Britain is delivering under this Government. The right hon. Gentleman would isolate this country and deprive us of our most crucial allies. We are going to take this country forward and outward into the world, and—in case I forgot to mention it before—we are going to deliver on our promises and take us out of the European Union this Friday, despite everything that he and all the Opposition parties tried to do.

Andrea Jenkyns: Prime Minister, up in Yorkshire, in your Conservative Brexit heartlands, we are celebrating us leaving the EU on Friday with a big Brexit bash. I wish to congratulate the Prime Minister on achieving us leaving the EU when so many deemed it impossible. Does he agree that this is an opportunity for a new chapter in our great country when we will finally control our laws, our borders and our money, and become a truly global trading nation?

Patrick Grady: Is the Prime Minister aware that the international strand of Glasgow’s fantastic Celtic Connections festival has been scaled back by almost 20% this year, because of what the director, Donald Shaw, described as the “hassle and stress” of sourcing visas for overseas artists? What is the Prime Minister’s message to artists who want to come here and share their talents, but who are put off by an over-complicated and extortionate application protest that signals they are not welcome?

Diane Abbott: I have to make some progress. The Government need to provide funding for police recruitment and police pensions; otherwise, the funds for one will come out of the other.
I remind Government Members that what they actually inherited in 2010 was police officer strength at a record high and a long-term downward trend in total crime, which began in the early 1990s and continued through Labour’s years in office. Labour in office was tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, but this Government squandered that legacy. In its most recent publication on crime, the Office for National Statistics states:
“Following a long-term reduction, levels of crime have remained broadly stable in recent years”.
Under the Tories, the downward trend in crime halted and total crime has stopped falling. In the past 12 months, well over 10 million crimes were committed. There was a 7% rise in offences involving knives—all of us in this House know the fear and concern in our communities about knife crime. That level of knife crime is 46% higher than when comparable recording began. This Government have presided over the highest level of knife crime on record. Of course, all of that increase occurred under Tory or Tory-led Governments. [Interruption.] As for Mayors, their resources come from Government.
The crime survey of England and Wales states:
“Over the past five years there has been a rise in the prevalence of sexual assault…with the latest estimate returning to levels similar to those over a decade ago.”
I hope the Minister takes that point seriously. Sexual assault is a concern for all people and all communities. Ministers should be ashamed that sexual assault is returning to levels seen over a decade ago. Each of those stats, whether for knife crime, violent crime or sexual assault, is terrible, and the House should pause and think of the individual victims behind those statistics.
Taken together, those stats are a damning indictment of this Government’s failures, but their record is even worse when it comes to actually apprehending criminals. Of course, how could it be otherwise when they have decimated the police and trashed the funding of our criminal justice system? The Home Office’s own data shows that just one in 14—I repeat: one in 14—crimes lead to charge or summons. While crime has risen, the charge rate for crime has fallen. The charge rate for rape is just 1.4%. I invite all Members to stop and think how appalling that statistic is. It is shameful. Government Members may claim that some of this is because police are recording crime better. It is true that recording is improving, but the police are not just there to record and report crime; they are there to prevent it, detect it and bring the perpetrators to justice.

Stephen Doughty: The Minister talks about a 360-degree approach. Will he therefore share my deep concern that when I discovered, along with BBC Wales, videos glamorising knife violence involving convicted criminals operating in my own constituency, YouTube refused to take them down, calling it legitimate artistic expression? These videos glamorised the carrying of knives and the disposal of evidence. Does he agree that YouTube should take such videos down?

Kit Malthouse: Yes. I think we should all be concerned about that statistic. As the right hon. Lady will know, the Prime Minister has ordered a royal commission to review the criminal justice system, and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), will lead a review on rape to see what more we can do to improve criminal justice. We must bear in mind, however, that the best sort of victim is someone who is not a victim at all, and I want to concentrate our efforts on the prevention of crime alongside its prosecution.
I have mentioned the increase in police funding. Last week, I announced that we would go even further. In 2020-21 we are giving forces £700 million for the recruitment of the first 6,000 of the 20,000 additional police officers promised in our manifesto, which represents an increase of nearly 10% of the core grant funding provided  last year. Those first 6,000 officers will be shared among the 43 territorial forces in England and Wales, and will be dedicated to territorial functions.
The scale of this recruitment campaign is unprecedented: no previous Government have ever attempted such an ambitious police recruitment drive. The new officers will be a visible and reassuring presence on our streets and in our communities. If we assume full take-up of precept flexibility, total police funding will increase by £1.1 billion next year. That—as we heard from the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott)—is the largest increase in funding for the police system for more than a decade, and it means that every single force in England and Wales will see a substantial increase in its funding.

Kit Malthouse: My hon. Friend is quite right to say that the rise in fraud over the past few years has been significant, and the Minister for Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), and I are not necessarily convinced that we are in the best shape organisationally to deal with it. A review has recently been done by Sir Craig Mackey into the way we address fraud, and I know that my right hon. Friend, whose part of the business this is, will be digesting that report and coming forward with proposals. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) may remember, however, that in the manifesto on which he and I both stood there was a pledge to create a cyber force. Given that we are seeing an exponential growth in the amount of online fraud, it strikes me that there is some strength in that proposal, and we will be bringing something forward in the near future.
It is sometimes easy to lose sight of the fact that the surest way to tackle crime is to prevent it from happening in the first place. We have announced an extensive series of preventive measures to remove opportunities for crime and to tackle its root causes. I recently announced the launch of a £25 million safer streets fund to support areas that are disproportionately affected by acquisitive crime and to invest in well- evidenced preventive interventions such as home security and street lighting. We are investing millions in early intervention through the £22 million early intervention youth fund and the long-term £200 million youth endowment fund to ensure that those most at risk are given the opportunity to turn away from violence and lead positive lives. The Serious Violence Bill will introduce a legal duty for schools, police, councils and health authorities to work together to prevent serious violence, along the lines that my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) suggested. They will be required to collaborate on an effective local response and to safeguard those most at risk, thereby protecting young people, their families and communities.
I cannot agree with the Opposition’s diagnosis of why certain types of crime are on the rise. I believe that colleagues on both sides of the House can see just how seriously the Government take the protection of our citizens. Our measures are extensive, well funded and based on firm evidence, and as long as crime continues to blight the lives of the most vulnerable, its eradication remains one of the people’s priorities and therefore our priority. Nothing can atone for the damage that crime inflicts on our communities each and every day, but we hope that in the years to come, fewer families will have to suffer the trauma of victimhood or the pain of bereavement that I saw on the face of Amro Elbadawi’s father.

Joanna Cherry: With all due respect to the hon. Lady, whom I congratulate on her recent election victory, I cannot agree with that. It is a political point that the Liberal Democrats repeatedly try to make in the Scottish Parliament, but it is not borne out by experience.
Police officer numbers are up by 1,000 in Scotland despite significant cuts to Scotland’s budget from Westminster. As of 30 September 2019, the total police officers were up 1,022 on 2007 figures. Scotland has more officers per head of population than in England and Wales. The ratio in Scotland is 32 officers per 10,000 members of the population versus 21 officers per 10,000 members of the population in England and Wales. I suggest that the sort of ratio we have in Scotland is something that England and Wales should be aiming for. The present Government’s proposal to increase police numbers simply reverses a position that they enforced at an earlier stage, so it is a bit rich for them to expect to be congratulated on reversing their own policy failures.

Kit Malthouse: The hon. and learned Lady would not want to mislead the House—I will not put as it as strongly as that—but while she refers to the 2007 figures, the numbers that I have suggest that the number at quarter 4 2019 was actually below that in 2009, so she is neatly avoiding the high point in her maths, illustrating the fact that police officer numbers in Scotland have been broadly flat for a decade.

Joanna Cherry: I do not accept that, and I return to the statistic I quoted: police officers stood at 17,256 in Scotland at 30 September 2019, which is up by 1,022 on the total inherited by the SNP Government when Alex Salmond first brought the SNP to power in Scotland in 2007. That is a fact. Of course, there have been fluctuations in the meantime, but there is a significant—[Hon. Members: “Aha!”] No, that is a fact. If the Minister thinks that I  am misleading the House on the stats, I challenge him to make a point of order and to bring stats that contradict mine. I can tell the Minister that this is not just about the Scottish National party, because people across Scotland working in the health service, the police and in other areas of Scottish public services are sick to death of glib comments from this misinformed Conservative Government —misinformed by the six Tory MPs that they are left with in Scotland.

Danny Kruger: I rise for the first time in this place as the hon. Member for Devizes and as the successor to my friend the great Claire Perry O’Neill. Claire was a brilliant Minister in several Departments, and she brought huge zest and zeal to her work in government. Most of all, however, she was a great campaigner for our constituency. We owe her for the faster, better trains through Pewsey and Bedwyn and for the superfast broadband that is now enjoyed by some of our smallest communities. Thanks to her, we have the promise of a new health centre in Devizes, which is badly needed and, I am afraid to say, quite long overdue. I have inherited from Claire the tradition of posing with the Health Secretary in an empty field outside Devizes, pointing to the spot where the health centre will appear at any moment. I pledge to Claire that I will see the project through as soon as possible.
Claire is now focusing on the presidency of COP26, the UN climate conference that the UK is hosting in Glasgow in November. This vital role is crucial for the future of our country and the world. I wish her all the very best in this, and I thank her for her work locally and for her friendship to me.
I represent a corner of the country that is not only the most beautiful in the land but, in a sense, the oldest. It is the ancient heart of England. My constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), can boast all he likes about Stonehenge, but we have Silbury Hill, the largest prehistoric structure in Europe— a great mound of earth the size of a small Egyptian pyramid built, for reasons we will never know, on a bend of the A4 just outside Marlborough.
We have Avebury, the largest stone circle in the world. It is not only much bigger but much older than Stonehenge, which is a vulgar upstart by comparison. We have the ancient burial grounds of our forgotten forebears in tombs and barrows 4,000 years old. We have white horses on the chalk hillsides.
We have big skies and tough people, and we have the British Army. A quarter of our Army is based in Wiltshire, including the regiments recently returned from Germany and now stationed in Tidworth, Larkhill, Bulford and villages round about. I am deeply honoured to represent our soldiers, and I pledge to serve them and their families as faithfully as they have served us.
My constituency is in a beautiful part of the country, but we face deep social challenges and many of the problems that are familiar to rural communities everywhere. We need better funding for our health service, for education, for police and for rural transport, and we need a new deal for our farmers. In the brave new world we are entering, in which rural businesses will face global competition and new environmental responsibilities, we need to remember our own responsibilities to the stewards of our countryside. I will be their champion.
I voted leave in 2016, and I am glad that we are leaving the EU on Friday. The 21st century will reward countries that are nimble, agile and free, but Brexit is about more than global Britain; it is a response to the call of home. It reflects people’s attachment to the places that are theirs. Patriotism is rooted in places. Our love of our country begins with love of our neighbourhoods. Our first loyalties are to the people we live among, and we have a preference to be governed by people we know. That impulse is not wrong; it is right.
As we finally get Brexit done this week, it is right that we are considering how to strengthen local places, especially places far from London. I wholeheartedly support the plans to invest in infrastructure to connect our cities and towns—the broadband and the transport links that will drive economic growth in all parts of the UK.
Just as important as economic infrastructure is what we might call social infrastructure: the institutions of all kinds where people gather to work together, to play together and to help each other. I make my maiden speech in this debate because I spent 10 years as the chief executive of a project I founded with my wife Emma that works in prisons and with young people at risk. It was the hardest job I have ever done, and I worked in some very tough places. We often failed, but we were always close to the people we tried to help. Never bureaucratic, and never treating people as statistics or—a phrase I do not like—service users, we saw them as people whose lives had gone wrong and whose lives, but for the grace of God, could have been ours.
We are now trustees of that charity. If I might make a plea to Ministers, it is for them to recognise the role of independent civil society organisations—charities and social enterprises—in the fight against crime and, indeed, against all the social evils we debate in this place.
Social problems demand social solutions, not just a state response. Of course we need the police, the prison system and the probation service—we need them very badly, and we need them to be better—but, just as important, we need the social infrastructure that prevents crime, supports victims and rehabilitates criminals.
The Government have a great mission as we leave the EU and try to fashion a UK that is fit for the future. This mission represents a challenge to some of the traditional views of both left and right. The main actor in our story is not the solitary individual seeking to maximise personal advantage, nor is it the central state enforcing uniformity from a Department in Whitehall; the main actor in our story is the local community.
We need reform of the public sector to create services that are genuinely owned and cared for by local people. We need reform of business so that directors are incentivised to think of people and the planet, as well as their quarterly profits. And we need reform of politics itself to give power back to the people and to make communities responsible for the decisions that affect them.
I finish on a more abstract issue, but it is one that we will find ourselves debating in many different forms in this Parliament. It is the issue of identity, of who we are both as individuals and in relation to each other. We traditionally had a sense of this: we are children of God, fallen but redeemed. Capable of great wrong but capable of great virtue. Even for those who did not believe in God, there was a sense that our country is rooted in Christianity and that our liberties derive from the Christian idea of absolute human dignity.
Today those ideas are losing their purchase, so we are trying to find a new set of values to guide us, a new language of rights and wrongs, and a new idea of identity based not on our universal inner value or on our membership of a common culture but on our particular differences.
I state this as neutrally as I can, because I know that good people are trying hard to make a better world and that Christianity and the western past are badly stained by violence and injustice, but I am not sure that we should so casually throw away the inheritance of our culture. There is so much to be positive about. I share the Prime Minister’s exuberant optimism about the future, but we need a set of values and beliefs to guide us.
As we advance at speed into a bewildering world in which we are forced to ask the most profound questions about the limits of autonomy and what it means to be human, we may have reason to look about for the old ways and to seek wisdom in the old ideas that are, in my view, entirely timeless.

Jo Stevens: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger), and I welcome him to the House. It was an articulate and beautiful speech, and I am sure he will be a very good advocate for his constituents. Many of us in this House support prisoner rehabilitation and the ability of most offenders to turn their lives around, so it is good to have another person join us in that cause.
This is a timely debate, because yesterday evening I and other Members representing constituencies across south Wales met the chief constable of South Wales police. I pay tribute to South Wales police, who epitomise the best of public service. Since being elected in 2015, I have learned a lot about the nature of the challenges South Wales police face every day in Cardiff Central and across our city. I have had the privilege of spending time with officers and control staff at their headquarters in Bridgend and with officers who patrol Cardiff city centre, seeing and hearing all about policing.
Schemes such as “Give a Day to Policing” are excellent, and the continuing dialogue and co-operation of police in Cardiff Central helps me and my constituents a great deal. I thank the police community support officers in my neighbourhood policing team who have provided a lot of support to me and my staff in difficult circumstances, particularly over the past couple of years, to ensure our safety. I really appreciate it.
All of this has broadened my knowledge and understanding of policing, which had previously centred on trying to get my clients out of police custody as quickly as possible when I was a practising criminal defence solicitor. I now know so much more about what it is like on the other side.
South Wales police are underfunded, under-resourced and overwhelmed with work. Conservative Members will point to the recently announced money to recruit officers—136 of them for the whole of south Wales—but there is no escaping the fact that this does not get near to reaching the officer numbers we had in 2010 before the decade of austerity and cuts.
Of course I welcome the money for recruitment this year but, in the context of Cardiff growing faster than any other major UK city outside London, it is not enough. It is not enough for the whole of south Wales, and it is certainly not enough for Cardiff.
As one of our four UK capital cities, Cardiff hosts more than 400 major civic, political and royal events every year and, on top of a decade of police funding cuts, my constituents are having to find money to contribute to the extra £4 million for the annual cost of policing these events—that is the equivalent of more than 60 police officers. I have repeatedly raised the anomaly of capital city funding with successive Home Office Ministers, Policing Ministers and Wales Office Ministers over the past few years. There is no valid explanation for why Cardiff is discriminated against in this way when it comes to capital city funding, so will the Minister please confirm that he will meet me and my Cardiff constituency neighbours to discuss how this unfair and unequitable situation can be resolved? During each of those 400 events, police officers have to be drawn from around the South Wales area into Cardiff and the city centre, which has a knock-on effect on the ability of the police to do their jobs, and protect people and property across the whole of South Wales.
That pressure comes on top of the daily pressure of rising crime, particularly violent crime, drug offences and domestic abuse. South Wales police have 30,000 reports of domestic abuse a year, never mind the reports of all the other crimes. In July last year, they had their highest total number of calls in a month in their history. As the chief constable was telling us yesterday, in the past year the force has seen an increase of 140% in reports of sexual violence; drug offences, both dealing and possession, have rocketed; and serious violence and knife crime has doubled. Drugs are at the heart of much of the crime in my constituency, as they are across the country.
The police cannot possibly deal with this challenge without much greater funding, and I now believe, having taken time to come to a firm view on this, that we need to look much more urgently at the issue of the drugs epidemic and at how it is driving the rise in crime. We need to think about options and solutions that have previously been unthinkable. This is a major public health  issue, a major policing issue and a major criminal justice issue, but none of those policy areas can tackle this alone. I worry that even in combination they cannot tackle the crisis that we face, and that decade of cuts is making that crisis worse. We now need to look at safe drug consumption rooms.
My constituents are deeply concerned about rising crime and decreasing community safety, and many of them gave me their views in a survey I ran just before the general election last year. Overall, there were three broad themes to what they were concerned about: violent crime and knife crime; drugs, both dealing and their use in front of people, including children, and the associated antisocial behaviour; and theft and burglaries. Many constituents made it clear to me that the Government’s cuts to police funding and to our Welsh Government’s budget were having an impact on local services, and that that in itself was playing a major part in all these crimes and the increasing number of them. My constituents overwhelmingly want to see more police on our streets. Neighbourhood policing is vital to them, as I know it is to many Members from across the country. My constituents want more funding for Wales, to provide services and resources to help people who are homeless or who have a drug addiction—or face both those problems. They want to see the police in their neighbourhoods and their communities, both to prevent crime and to protect citizens and property. So my message to the Government is: 136 new officers across South Wales is not enough—we really need many more.

Ben Bradley: I pay tribute to the hon. Members whose great maiden speeches we have heard in the House today. I have to admit that the election of the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Allan Dorans) was one of the great sadnesses of my election night, because his predecessor was a very good man and a good friend of mine. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will continue to work in the same vein. If he does, I know that, although I am sure we will disagree on much, will be able to work together well. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) gave a passionate speech in which he showed his vision for his constituency and for the country, which I welcome. He will be a great asset to the House.
I welcome many things that the Government are doing on policing and crime, not least the new recruitment drive and the police covenant, on which I and a great number of colleagues have been campaigning for a year or more, not least as part of the Blue Collar Conservative campaign and agenda that has driven so much in respect of policing as a key priority. I welcome the £15.2 billion funding package, which is up by £1.1 billion on last year.
I thank the Minister for meeting Nottinghamshire colleagues last week. Nottinghamshire has its own gripes about police funding and everything else, but I thank him for that meeting and trust that he will take those things forward. The announcement of additional funding was incredibly welcome in the wake of that meeting, and I know that those resources will go a long way towards supporting our local police to deliver what residents want and need. Throughout the election campaign, it was incredibly clear that policing and crime was a key priority for them. In particular, they felt as though their community policing had disappeared. We are going to get 107 additional officers in the first of three rounds, and that is very welcome. I will fight locally to make sure that the right proportion comes to us in Mansfield. I pressed the Minister in that meeting, and I do it again now publicly, to ensure that as many of the additional 20,000 officers as possible are visible in frontline roles, working with our communities. So much of the intelligence that enables us to deal with the rest of the crime on our streets and in our country comes from conversations on the frontlines between neighbourhood officers and the communities they get to know.
I am not entirely convinced about the graduate requirement for police recruitment. I hope that we will open up the recruitment process beyond graduates to all the different avenues available, including degree apprenticeships and everything else that has come forward through the system.
I also welcome the crackdown on serious violence, including proper sentencing, which we talked about in the House yesterday. In recent months, we have heard complaints from local people who see reports in the media about how those involved in drug rings, paedophiles and rapists are being given early release. That seems to be more and more prevalent, but whether that is actually the case or just a media perception, it is a growing concern among my constituents. I trust that we will be able to combat this effectively by ensuring that sentencing is clear and that we are open and honest with the public about what it means to receive these sentences.
Drugs drive so much of our crime. I know that the Minister has spoken previously about the drugs that have made such a huge difference in our communities. I know that so much of that crime has been led by drugs. I spoke to the previous policing Minister about Mamba and Spice in particular, which is a blight on our community and which in summer 2018 turned my town centre in Mansfield into a scene from a zombie video game. I pressed at the time for a review of the classification of Mamba and Spice, and 18 months on, that review is still ongoing. I ask the Minister to speak, if possible, to the Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs to drive that forward and make sure that we get proper change and decisions made, because the review been dragging on for a long time with no outcome.
I welcome the police covenant, the police protection Bill and the support behind the scenes for police officers, including for their mental and physical health, and so many other things that they need and deserve. Almost every member of my extended family is or has been a police officer, so I hear about those requirements from all angles. One that I have raised with the Minister previously came up when we met police representatives at party conference. It was about internal investigations in the police and how some of them seemed to drag on for an awfully long time, leaving often innocent officers at home on full pay and not able to take part in the work that they are qualified to do and that they want to do. I ask that we make sure—perhaps within the covenant —that those investigations are dealt with swiftly, both because victims and perpetrators need justice. Police must be held to account and to the law like everybody else, but we need to make sure that we are not leaving people at home being paid to do nothing when they want to be out and working on the frontlines.
The investment in Tasers is a positive thing. After quizzing my constituents about it—we have done some local polling—they were incredibly positive. I recognise that there are different community sensitivities and that their use will not be right everywhere, but certainly locally it has been incredibly popular. I personally think that every police officer who wants a Taser should be able to have one. We see the risks that our officers face on an increasingly regular basis, so it is only right that they are protected and able to protect our communities as well.
The Conservative party is, and should always be, the party of law and order, and if we are not delivering on that, we are not really doing our jobs very well. I have found myself concerned about this matter over the past few years. I think that we have got a job to do.

Ben Bradley: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is vital that the public can trust in our sentencing and know that the punishment will fit the crime. That applies to all levels of crime. There is no benefit to people going into prison for two weeks and not getting any help or support while they are in there, then coming back out, having lost their housing or whatever it may be, and starting on the spiral of criminality again. In many cases, a longer sentence with more inbuilt support to help them to rehabilitate would be better. We need a proper review, and I hope that the Opposition will give that fair consideration when the Government try to deliver it
As I said, we have a job to do to rebuild trust with the police and with the public, who are rightly at the top of the agenda. To feel safe in their community is the No. 1 thing that the public wants and needs, and we should be delivering that, so I am pleased that it is absolutely at the top of this Government’s agenda. It was at the forefront of our election campaign. A lot of promises were made, and no doubt we will all hold the Government to account for delivery.
We need to ensure that residents get proper responses and proper communication, so they know what response they should be getting—that has also been raised with me regularly. We must ensure that we have a proper, fair and open sentencing system, particularly for serious offenders, and that we keep our communities safe. I know from conversation with the Minister in recent weeks that he is absolutely committed to delivering on that. He is on the right track, and I hope that legislation to deliver will be introduced as soon as possible. I absolutely welcome the Government’s commitment to policing and crime, and particularly to supporting those officers who do so much to keep us all safe.

Holly Lynch: I thank my hon. Friend for making that very important point. She is quite right that, as those 600 police stations have closed in our communities and the numbers of officers has declined, people are feeling that that access to justice is further away from them than ever before, and that is contributing to that lack of confidence in the ability of our police officers to secure the results that we so desperately need in our communities.
In addition to reductions in officers and police stations, there have been changes to officer recruitment and training. I do not necessarily disagree with those changes, but they do mean that the new officers promised by the Prime Minister will not be operational until 2023. We have a long way to go before we start to the feel the change in approach from this Conservative Government towards policing on our streets and in our communities.
I look forward to the police powers and protections Bill which, as I understand it, will legislate for the creation of a police covenant; like the hon. Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley), I am very much in favour of that. It will also allow special constables to join the Police Federation and allow another look at the legality of emergency driving, to ensure that all police officers know where they stand when tasked with driving in an emergency situations. I know that all such measures will be welcomed by both the public and the officers themselves.
I am currently taking part in the police service parliamentary scheme, which I recommend to all colleagues, particularly our new colleagues. It offers a truly insightful frontline experience of what is going on right across policing. Having had to call 999 from a police car for urgent back-up for a single-crewed officer whom I was shadowing on the front line, I decided to start the Protect the Protectors campaign, which finally resulted in law changes introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) in 2018.
The Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 created a new offence of “assault against an emergency worker” with the maximum penalty increased from six months to 12 months. The Act also created a statutory aggravating factor within a raft of other offences including sexual assault, actual bodily harm, grievous bodily harm and manslaughter, which means that the judge must consider the fact that the offence was committed against an emergency worker as an aggravating factor, meriting an increase in the sentence. I was reassured but somewhat taken aback to hear the Minister in his opening remarks talk about the Government’s plan to double sentences for those who assault police officers. Although the 2018 Act was very much a step in the right direction, I cannot stress enough how hard we had to fight Ministers to secure the increase from six months to 12 months; they rejected our initial proposals for 24 months. We very much welcome that step to double sentences, but it is hard to describe how hard we had to fight for it. We had our proposals rejected by the then Government just 18 months ago.
While we make the laws in here, we ask the police to uphold and enforce them out there, and we certainly agree that to assault an emergency service worker is to  show complete disregard for law and order. It is a breakdown in our shared values and in democracy itself, and that must be reflected in sentencing, particularly for repeat offenders. It saddens me to say that the changes in the law are having a minimal impact. There were over 30,000 assaults on police officers in England and Wales in 2018-19, as well as a 13% increase in attacks classified as assault without injury on a constable, and a 27% increase in assault with injury on a constable, compared with the previous year. There were 1,897 recorded assaults last year in West Yorkshire alone—the highest figure in England and Wales outside the Met area. Will the Minister reopen this issue as part of the police powers and protections Bill, and look at minimum sentencing, enhanced penalties for repeat offenders and the abolition of suspended sentences for such crimes?
The other element of the “Protect the Protectors” Bill that we were not able to nail down in statute related to spitting. I have shared horror stories on several occasions in this Chamber about emergency service workers having been spat at, and the anxiety of having to wait up to six months for test results to determine whether they have contracted a potentially life-changing communicable disease, having to take antiviral treatments as a precaution, and on occasion having to adhere to restrictions about interacting with close family and friends, based on advice given by medical professionals. We initially wanted to introduce a new law to require someone who spits at a police officer or any other emergency service worker to provide a blood sample in order to determine whether they have a communicable disease. Such a measure would give the victim some clarity about whether antiviral treatments would be required. The new law would have made it a crime for the perpetrator to refuse to provide a sample.
Advice provided by the NHS at the time argued that the chances of contracting such diseases were so low that any such testing was not necessary, as contracting the disease from being spat at or bitten was almost impossible. The problem is that even today the advice given to frontline officers presenting at A&E having been spat at is a course of antiviral treatment and six months of testing as a precaution. Will the Minister agree to have another look at this issue with colleagues in the Department of Health, to ensure that we are removing as much stress and anxiety from the situation as possible for dedicated police officers and their colleagues across the emergency services who have been subjected to such vile behaviour in the line of duty?
I want to take this opportunity to highlight the issues of recruitment and retention in police leadership. Last summer I invited doctors from Calderdale to meet the then Health Minister to discuss how the annual lifetime allowances on their pensions were affecting them. Although the Government have found a temporary sticking plaster for this issue for clinicians, the same problem persists right across the public sector—not least in policing. In a letter to the chair of the Police Pension Scheme Advisory Board sent just this week, the Policing Minister argued that although he is open to the reform of police pensions, the case
“does not demonstrate evidence of recruitment and retention problems and a resulting impact on operational service delivery”.
Having recently taken part in the police service parliamentary scheme, I can tell the Minister that, anecdotally, this is  certainly discouraging officers from seeking promotion to the higher ranks, and senior officers openly tell me that this is the case.
Research undertaken by the National Police Chiefs’ Council shows that the number of applicants for chief officer jobs is declining, as is the length of tenure in those roles. My own force, West Yorkshire police, had just one applicant on the previous two occasions it needed to fill the post of chief constable, and Northumbria police force recently had to open recruitment for a chief constable three times. Will the Minister have another look at the issue, given that, perversely, senior officers are receiving bizarre yearly tax bills that are greater than their annual salary?
I very much welcome some of the decisions taken, but there is certainly a long way to go for the Government to win back trust from communities and from within policing.

Mark Fletcher: The Government know that their first priority is to protect the public, and having a well-funded and properly resourced police department is vital in delivering that duty. I warmly welcome the recruitment of 20,000 new police officers to help in that mission, and the additional £13.5 million in funding for Derbyshire police announced last week. But the fight against crime is about more than figures and pounds. It is about our culture, as the Minister set out earlier, and our approach to crime, criminals, victims, rehabilitation and sentencing, and how tolerant we are of those who choose to play by their own rules. I know that our Prime Minister gets that point; he said in his very first speech outside Downing Street that making our streets safe is a key priority. I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gets it—that we are on the side of honest, decent, law-abiding individuals. But having listened to some of the remarks in the opening speeches of Opposition Front Benchers, I am not sure that they get that point.
Crime is a scourge on working-class communities up and down the country. For some, it is antisocial behaviour and the feeling of impotence people get when they live on a street with one troublesome neighbour who blights the lives of all around. This is a daily occurrence for too many people, and it must not be allowed. When the Home Secretary visited Clowne during the election, she heard from some of the residents about how they have suffered as a result of antisocial behaviour. As she said then, we cannot and should not stand by while these residents suffer in silence, and they must know that this Government are on their side.
For others, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman) set out earlier, it is crimes such as burglaries. A number of people in Bolsover town and elsewhere have written to me recently to say that there has been a spate of burglaries across the constituency. I have written to the chief constable and received helpful responses, but it is so important that these crimes are investigated and perpetrators brought to justice. Victims must know that we are on their side, and those who think they can get away with such offences must know that they will be targeted with the full force of the law. There should be no doubt that these crimes—too often overlooked by those on social media who think that  every word spoken by a Conservative politician is some sort of crime—blight the lives of too many working-class people in this country.
We are incredibly fortunate to have so many dedicated police officers up and down the country who work incredibly hard to protect our communities. I thank them for their service. I am sure that they will welcome the news that they will have 6,000 additional colleagues by March 2021, as well as the forthcoming police protections Bill. Our police officers must know that they have our full support in this House, and we will ensure that they have the resources they need.
I welcome the forthcoming royal commission on the criminal justice system. I hope that its terms of reference will allow it to be as holistic as possible. It is incredibly important that we understand the public’s understanding of, involvement in and support for the system as it stands, and I hope that that will form part of the review. I have three suggestions or comments that I hope can be fed into that process.
First, a number of forces have streamlined their physical presence across the areas they serve, operating from fewer stations and reducing building costs to reinvest in frontline policing. In Bolsover town itself, it is regularly mentioned that the station is no longer there. That leads to three questions. Has the closure of these stations—or, in some cases, front desks—had any effect on the support for police in these communities? Has it affected their community relationships and intelligence gathering? And has the closure of these desks been compensated by more visible policing on the streets in the surrounding areas?
Secondly, although police and crime commissioners are a welcome addition to our policing landscape, there is scope to give them greater powers. In particular, we should look at giving them some control over sentencing rules in their respective patches. For example, if there is a particular issue with a crime in a certain area, we should allow PCCs to set tougher sentencing in that area so that we can respond to local needs.
Thirdly, there should be greater involvement from councillors and parish councillors, particularly on matters such as antisocial behaviour. Usually when an individual causes problems, they are well known by their neighbours, but there is often a sense that nothing can be done. I strongly believe that if a parish council or a councillor were given greater powers in identifying these individuals, we could get rid of them more quickly. That is what residents deserve.
This Government are committed to a properly funded police force with the physical and legislative powers they need. We are on the side of honest, hard-working people, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is determined to do all she can to help the police to protect the residents of Bolsover and elsewhere.

Vicky Foxcroft: Let me start by saying how disappointing it is that the “Victoria Derbyshire” show is going to be taken off-air. I have been on the show several times to talk about the impact of youth violence and finding solutions to prevent it. It has engaged in looking at the root causes of and how we tackle knife crime and with young people, including former young mayors of Lewisham, with genuine sensitivity. I hope this decision is revisited.

Jessica Morden: Despite what the Minister said in his opening remarks, the Government’s announcement on police funding provides only limited clarity for forces for the next financial year and leaves serious questions to answer about the long-term strategy for funding our forces. We need a long-term strategy for funding our forces, after years of hard cuts and the impact that they have had on our communities—communities that need to see more police on the beat, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) said so eloquently. I pay tribute to her for not only her speech but the work that she does as chair of the excellent Youth Violence Commission.
While any new police officers are welcome—I say that having attended a number of passing out parades, often with my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones), to welcome new recruits in the last year to Gwent police—the Government’s Operation Uplift programme does not make amends for the 21,000 officers cut under Tory austerity since 2010. In Gwent, which saw its budget slashed by an eye-watering 40% in real terms over the last decade, the new recruitment programme will only take officer levels back to where they were in 2010, if that. That is not to mention the loss of civilian staff, whose work is often unseen.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) said, it was the Welsh Government who stepped in to fund 500 police community support officers in Wales when police numbers were cut. We need some answers from the Government about what funding will be made available to recruit, train, equip and locate these additional officers. As well as the loss of officers over the past decade, most forces have had to reduce their support departments, facilities and other functions that are vital to the successful training and deployment of police officers.

Jessica Morden: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are many examples of that in Gwent, and it puts an additional strain on existing officers, which is obviously a bad thing.
We still have no clarity on how these officers will be paid for after the initial three years of Government funding comes to an end. Is that because police forces will have to meet these costs from their own budgets and raise more money from local council tax payers, who have already been turned to frequently over recent years to plug the gap left by the central grant? It is time the Government addressed the issue of long-term funding. The question of pension costs is also outstanding and needs to be answered by the Government.
The Government announced funding to increase the uptake of Tasers, but the latest funding announcement only covers Taser equipment. Funding for training and other associated costs will need to be met from police forces’ own budgets. For forces such as Gwent, which has been forced to make £50 million of savings since 2008, that represents another significant financial commitment.
Welsh police forces are still being left in the dark over the apprenticeship levy. Gwent police and the other Welsh police forces have paid in excess of £2 million towards the apprenticeship levy each year since it was introduced in 2017. After pressure from our local police and crime commissioner, Jeff Cuthbert, and his counter- parts, the Home Secretary advised that it would provide Welsh forces directly with their share of the levy from 2019. However, Welsh forces have yet to see any of that money. Can Ministers look into that and tell us what is going on?
I would like to pay huge tribute to Gwent police officers and staff, including Chief Constable Pam Kelly, for all they do, and to our police and crime commissioner, Jeff Cuthbert, who is very active and responsive in our community. I am very aware of the impact that the Government’s cut of over 20,000 police officers has had on the wellbeing, stress levels and workload of all existing police staff—that should not be underestimated—and on our communities.
Despite that, Gwent Police deserves huge credit for its ongoing work in tackling serious violence and organised crime. This includes projects funded by the office of the police and crime commissioner and the Home Office that have delivered training to more than 400 partner organisations on county lines, gangs and violence, and delivered sessions to 5,500 pupils across Newport schools. Thanks also to organisations such as Positive Futures, Barnardo’s and the St Giles Trust for what they are doing in partnership to offer diversionary activities to young people. I have seen that work for myself in my constituency, and it is hugely valuable. We could do with some of the work by the violence prevention unit in south Wales going Wales-wide to help with young people in Newport.
We want greater investment in all areas—from educational and diversionary activities to prevent people from committing crimes in the first place to investment in police control rooms and custody suites, the Crown Prosecution Service, the courts and victims’ services. To give a local example, Gwent Police’s early action together team has transformed the way the force responds to children and vulnerable people. It has trained over 1,000 officers to deal with complex vulnerability issues and offers families help and support at the very earliest opportunity, yet the police transformation fund, which has paid for this work, is to be cut.
Our PCC has shown the benefit of this work in supporting vulnerable people away from potentially turning to a life of crime and antisocial behaviour. Our PCC has agreed to fund this work, but again, the police are in effect picking up the tab for locally based diversionary activities to keep young people out of the criminal justice system. I completely agree with Gwent Police that this focused early intervention should be funded at a national level and form part of the Government’s long-term spending plan.
Finally, 2020 marks two years since the passage of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Halifax (Holly Lynch) and for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) for their determined efforts to push through this much-needed legislation on to the statute book. However, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax that we need the Government to be serious in enforcing the protecting the protectors law, as the number of assaults on officers is still far too high. Attacks on those who protect and care for us—that includes prison officers, NHS staff and firefighters—remain completely unacceptable and abhorrent, and we need to ensure that the legislation we have in place acts as the most effective deterrent possible.

Sarah Champion: My hon. Friend is right, but the difference between paedophile rings and grooming gangs is that for the former, the police have the research and understanding to know what the motivators are. A police force can look at patterns of behaviour or get ahead of the abuse because they see those patterns, and then they can disrupt it. Sadly, for all the promises that the Government made, we still do not have that research about grooming gangs. That is something I asked for, and something I would like the Minister to reassure me about.
I sent a letter to the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid)—I have been working on this for a while—and on 6 December I received a reply:
“Thank you for your letter of 3 September to the Home Secretary seeking an update on Home Office activity to understand the characteristics of group-based child sexual exploitation…In your letter you emphasise the need for research and the importance of sharing relevant findings with agencies tasked with protecting vulnerable children and young people and disrupting offenders…I recognise that the Home Office is uniquely placed to provide some of this insight, protecting operationally sensitive information where it is appropriate and necessary. Officials will consider the most appropriate approach in sharing this work and will advise Ministers, including the Home Secretary, in due course.”
I hope that officials have now advised the Home Secretary about a matter that is pressing, up and down our country.
The Government have committed to publishing a national child sexual abuse strategy that will look at all forms of abuse, but I am talking specifically about research that is used to disrupt grooming gangs, which should be published imminently. Will the Government make a commitment on timing, and say how that information will be shared nationally? How will police forces, local authorities and the voluntary sector be resourced so that they can use that data to disrupt such behaviour?
I turn now to the historical failings of our police forces. Two weeks ago, the Mayor of Greater Manchester published a report into Operation Augusta, which was about trying to disrupt a grooming gang and seek justice. The headlines from that report are shocking. It found that police and social services failed the girls, and that police resources were insufficient to deal with the issue. The girls were seen as prostitutes and as somehow complicit in their own abuse. Greater Manchester police dropped an operation that identified up to 97 potential suspects, and at least 57 potential victims. Eight of those men went on to rape girls. As recently as 2018, the chief constable refused to reopen the dropped operation.
The following week, the Independent Office for Police Conduct released a report into one strand of its investigation into the handling of past child abuse cases by South Yorkshire police. I wrote to our chief constable, and stated:
“The report’s conclusions make profoundly disturbing reading. South Yorkshire police failed the child multiple times, and by doing so, led her to be exposed to long-term horrific abuse. It is particularly concerning that the report upholds a complaint against a senior officer and that it has not been possible for this officer to be identified.
As I am sure you would agree, I do not believe it is possible for Rotherham to have confidence in its police force whilst officers found to have failed so badly, and with such catastrophic consequences, are not held to account for their actions. I would therefore welcome your assurances that every effort will be made to identify officers involved, and that any possible misconduct will be both investigated and action taken, including where appropriate, disciplinary action.”
I have still not received a satisfactory response to that, although I hope I will receive one. This not a witch hunt; this is about restoring confidence in our local police force. This is about victims and survivors feeling that they have had closure, and that what they went through will never happen to anybody else. I ask the Minister: please, let us look at transparency and accountability in our police forces.
I ask all hon. Members present, including the Minister, to ask their police forces for information about the caseloads of officers who are dealing with child sexual exploitation, compared with those dealing with other crimes. How many dedicated child sexual exploitation officers are qualified in the professionalising investigation programme—PIP2—and what is the ratio of uniformed police officers to detectives assigned to CSE investigations? What is the retention rate of investigating officers on CSE cases, and what is the average level of experience among officers assigned to CSE investigations? I say to all of you: if you think you do not have child exploitation in your patch, you have. Ask those questions and make sure that your force is properly resourced to protect everyone in your constituency.

Ruth Cadbury: I pay tribute to the Members who have made their maiden speeches today. I value the experience of Members from different parties and their knowledge of their local constituencies.
Like many Members here today, my own constituency has seen a rise in knife crime and in young people becoming caught up in crime. As others have said, people are experiencing more robberies at knifepoint and more stabbings. There has been an increase in knife injuries coming into West Middlesex University Hospital’s A&E department, and last March we had the tragic death at knife point of a young man in Isleworth.
Over the past year, I have engaged in a range of work listening to people and their experiences. I conducted a survey of residents. I discuss knife crime whenever I go to schools, talking to students as well as headteachers and other adults in those schools. I brought together local people at two public events to discuss the problem and to see whether we can find solutions. On knife crime, over the past year I have heard from young people themselves and their parents, and from youth workers, social workers, headteachers, teachers, police officers, councillors, specialist staff who work with young people, and, as I said, the A&E staff at West Middlesex hospital.
What people tell me is that, first of all, they are seeing fewer police on the streets. The cuts to London’s policing resulting from the £700 million cut to the London Mayor’s police budget has meant that, in effect, our neighbourhood teams are half the size they were eight years ago. Reported crime is too often dropped, and crimes are taking longer and longer to come to a resolution. Young people themselves are scared of being victims; sadly, they are so frightened they end up carrying knives. Young people and parents tell me that drug gangs, using sophisticated mind games based on befriending and misplaced loyalty, are too easily drawing young people into dealing or carrying drugs. Young people and their parents have told me how young people are unwillingly drawn in by the offer of food to somebody who is hungry, by the offer of a place to hang out for somebody who is living in overcrowded flat, or by the offer of cash to somebody who wants to help their mum out with the weekly shopping. These young people do not wake up one day and decide to be criminals. Those most at risk are those with the least money, the least space and the least capacity—young people with special educational needs or family issues—and they are the most likely to be caught.
The experience of recent years is that in addition to the halving of the visible police presence, we have lost a range of other public services, including the welfare and pastoral support in schools that young people, particularly those experiencing difficulties, need. Local authority funding has been cut, meaning that youth services have had to be cut. Hounslow Council has had to cut almost all mainstream youth services in our borough. Youth workers are often at the frontline, so they know who is hanging out with who, where young people are at risk, which young people are at risk, and where the drug gangs and the serious criminals are drawing them in. They are best placed to provide diversionary activities and positive support to those young people. One headteacher told me this morning about a young person she is worried about. She has tried to report the situation to both social workers and the police, but they are overstretched. They want to help, but they do not have the capacity. These are all examples of the cuts in the public services that we all depend on and need if we are to be free of crime and knife crime.
We have had some good news locally. We have some great police community support officers who really know their communities and their young people. We have had violence prevention work from the London Mayor, which is starting to make a difference. We have had Home Office funding for a peace project with the youth offending team, which is working with schools, and that is positive. As a result of my meetings, parents who are worried about their young people getting caught up in crime are starting to meet together as a support group. However, these little drips are not enough.
I pay tribute to the work of the police officers in our area. They are skilled, dedicated and committed, but they are struggling with the lack of resources and lack of support. They are only an emergency service, and too often a reactive service, and they can tackle crime and its causes only if they have the support of other agencies.
Young people tell me that they do not mind stop-and-search if it is done properly and respectfully, with the policies being carried out properly and the body-worn cameras switched on. The Government, however, must  take responsibility for this crime wave after 10 years of austerity in public funding, cutting away all the services that I have outlined and which we need to support young people. We need to take account of the public health experiences in Scotland and other places and have a wraparound public health approach to knife crime, because it works. However, that needs to be adequately supported by a group of services, so that a range of qualified, experienced staff in all services are addressing the problem. Will the Government and the Minister please stop chasing headlines, focus on what works and listen to those involved? We can get tough on crime only if we get tough on the causes of crime, and then we need to invest, invest and invest in the solutions that work.

Dehenna Davison: Labour Members seemingly forget that the reason that the purse strings had to be tightened at all was the mess in our public finances that we were left with. We have brought those public finances under control and strengthened our economy, meaning that we can now invest properly but sustainably in our public services, and that is exactly what we are doing.
There will be 68 new officers for County Durham, but let me emphasise that this is only the first tranche of recruitment and there is more to come. This is about not just the number of officers, but making sure that our existing officers feel valued. I am delighted to support the police covenant and the moves to allow special constables to access the full benefits of being members of the Police Federation. Those are all positive steps to support our incredible police.
Something that I reckon I will not say too often in this place is that I agree with the shadow Home Secretary about the need for serious policy on law and order, but I reject strongly her view that her party is the one that will deliver that serious policy. Labour’s talk on sentencing is weak and feeble, while we are planning a new sentencing Bill to review sentencing right across the board. As an early part of that, the House debated a new statutory instrument yesterday on ending the automatic halfway release point for serious offenders. I admit that I was a bit disappointed to see so few Labour Members in that debate, although I welcomed the really strong and moving contribution from the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), as her contribution also was today.
Getting sentencing right is so crucial. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton is right to speak about the importance of protecting our prison officers. Following the recent incident at HMP Deerbolt, I raised this with the Justice Secretary and met the prisons Minister—the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer)—to discuss the need to roll out additional protective equipment to keep our prison officers safe.
As someone whose father was killed through violence, as I have mentioned in this place several times, I spoke yesterday about the need for victims to be represented in the legislative process on crime and justice. On that note, how does the shadow Home Secretary dare to sit opposite and accuse Government Members of having disdain for victims of crime? It is a shameful accusation and totally trivialises a debate of such crucial national importance, for the sake of a snappy 10-second social media clip. The victims of violent crime do not want rhetoric; they want action and results. That is why the Government are listening and taking steps to extend stop-and-search powers.
We plan to extend emergency stop-and-search powers only to help to get weapons off our streets and protect our citizens. In 2017-18, stop and search resulted in over  48,000 arrests, with almost 8,000 of those for weapons and firearms. Our proposed changes have been welcomed by many, including the National Police Chiefs Council lead for stop and search and Caroline Shearer, who founded Only Cowards Carry after her 17-year-old son, Jay Whiston, was fatally stabbed in 2012.
The victims and families of the victims who have been affected by violent crime know that it is common sense that stop and search can save injuries and save lives. After all, the job of any Government is to keep their citizens safe, which we as a party recognise and are further acting upon. With 20,000 new police officers, funding for the roll-out of protection through tasers, enhanced but targeted stop-and-search powers, tougher sentences and more, I am proud to support the Government’s amendment.

Thangam Debbonaire: Indeed I do, because my constituents, like the constituents of Members across the House, have had to suffer 10 years of cuts.
The Minister seems to expect us to be grateful, but on behalf of the people of Bristol West, I say that we are not. We wanted investment in our police in 2011, 2012 and 2013. We have faced cuts every year. We have seen the cuts, we have felt the consequences, and the Prime Minister’s announcement of the growth in police numbers does not make up for it. In Avon and Somerset, it will mean just 403 new officers, but over three years—and we have lost 700 over the last 10.
Meanwhile, crime has not gone down, and the nature of crime has changed, partly as a consequence of other cuts—cuts to drug treatment; cuts to youth services; cuts to mental health provision; cuts across the board. All have had a cost. My constituents are smart people. They can add up, and they are not fooled by being told that we are now going to get some new officers over the next few years.
Of course I am proud that Avon and Somerset police managed to rise to the challenge of those budget cuts, but it is not what I wanted for them, and it is not what I wanted for my constituents, who deserved better. I pay tribute to our police and crime commissioner, Sue Mountstevens, and our chief constable, Andy Marsh, and to every single officer and civilian working in the constabulary of Avon and Somerset, because they have worked so hard to keep us safe; and to the PCSOs, the specials and the officers who put their lives on the line daily.
I am proud that my niece’s husband James is a serving police officer in the Dyfed-Powys police force. We are really proud of him and we are grateful to him and all our officers, but they should not have had to work in such conditions. It is the specialist services as  well as the overall numbers—as the Minister said, it is not just about numbers; it is also about specialist services, and that is where a lot of the cuts have fallen. It is not fair; it is not sustainable. It is affecting our safety as civilians and our feelings of safety.
I briefly mention knife crime. Bristol had 1,237 knife crimes in the past 12 months, an 11% increase on the previous year. Like so many other constituencies, we have a knife crime problem, but when the Government first announced a response to knife crime our force was not initially among the seven allocated money; our police and crime commissioner and chief constable had to fight for it. We are grateful for the fact that we have got some now, but we should not have needed to beg for it.
We need long-term certainty. We need more attention to be paid to the other factors in responding to and preventing knife crime, particularly among young people. I hope that every word that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) said today, and on so many occasions as chair of the Youth Violence Commission, will be heeded.
I am angry, because 10 years of cuts to youth services, 10 years of cuts to other help and support for families, such as Sure Start, domestic violence support and mental health services, and 10 years of cuts to drug and alcohol services have all had consequences, and we are living with them. We are living with drug-related crime, for instance.
Ministers have mentioned their concerns, which I understand. Members across the House have concerns about how we respond to drug crime. Even on the Opposition Benches we are not in agreement. I respect the different points of view, but I would like everyone to understand, when we discuss drug consumption rooms, that we already have a drug consumption room: it is called the streets of Bristol, and it is dangerous for people who consume drugs and dangerous for the bystanders. I would really like the Minister to work with other Ministers to find out what the potential solutions are. I believe they are having some form of drug safety in treatment rooms. The Minister may disagree, but I would really like to know what she thinks.
As in the areas of other police forces, one in three violent crimes in Avon and Somerset area are domestic violence and one in five of homicides are domestic. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford said, there is a strong connection between childhood exposure to domestic abuse and other adverse childhood experiences, and future harm and harmful behaviour. It is good that domestic abuse reporting has increased as public tolerance has decreased, and I am really grateful to the Minister for all she has done to champion responses to domestic abuse. I urge her to redouble her efforts to get the Bill back before us, because that had cross-party support. She knows—I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—that I shall be pressing her on the responses to domestic violence perpetrators. It is not just about current victims; it is about future victims and their children.
However, our entire criminal justice system has suffered under austerity, which was not necessary and has undermined the responses to police work and prevention. I did not want us to create the posts of police and crime commissioners, but I have really appreciated the attention to violence against women, to child sexual exploitation  and to knife crime that our police and crime commissioner, Sue Mountstevens, and others have shown. She has shown determined, locally focused leadership.
That is the plus side of localism, but on the downside it has many weaknesses, such as fewer economies of scale, and weaker responses to crimes of an international dimension, such as modern slavery and trafficking. It has meant passing the blame for the impact of national cuts to the local police and other services.
I want to mention the Brexit word, briefly; I am not afraid to mention it. I know that the Prime Minister would like it all to be over on Friday, but as we leave the European Union on Friday we will be hampered in the international dimension unless the negotiations for the future relationship prioritise safety and security and data sharing. At the moment, if our police make an arrest, they can share information about risk and gain information about risk with forces across the EU. They can issue a European arrest warrant, which helps to respond to the flight of criminals to other EU nations. I urge the Minister, in her closing remarks, to tell us how the Government will be prioritising, in the future relationship negotiations, those aspects which are about keeping us safe.
Finally, I ask the Minister a few questions. I hope that if she cannot address them in her final remarks, she will perhaps consent to meet me to discuss them. I ask for a focus on the preventive health approach to knife and violent crime. That covers all forms of violent crime: intervention in schools and awareness on safe relationships and the difference between safe and unsafe relationships, as well as long-term, sustainable funding structures for local authorities, youth services and police, because that is what we need to bring the number of serious violent and knife crimes down.
The Minister for Crime, Policing and the Fire Service said in his opening remarks that it was not all about numbers of police officers and he is right, but it is also about the funding of those other services. He cannot duck the consequences indefinitely. I would like a multi-year funding settlement for our police forces, so that they can plan. I would like an acknowledgment—just once—of the damage done by 10 years of unnecessary cuts and the impact on police officers, such as my nephew-in-law and his colleagues and our police across the country, who too often have had to be on single crewing in call-outs and had to deal with the fact that they knew they could not manage all the things they wanted to do. I would like the Minister to commit to an end to the boom-and-bust approach, because our constituents and our police deserve much better than this.

Dean Russell: I would like to thank hon. Members for such a great debate today. I would particularly like to thank the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) for raising the phrase “boom and bust”, which is the reason we have had 10 years of so many challenges. It is because, over the past 10 years, this Government have looked after the coffers that we are able to invest in our brave coppers. It is because this Government have looked after the purses of the taxpayers of this country that we are now able to invest in our doctors and nurses.
But let us be realistic: the reason why this has been done is not because of some spiteful approach to those on the frontline; it is because actually, we have been forced into it, and now we are coming out and seeing the light. Let us be honest: the voters in some constituencies may have disagreed, but the rest of the voters across the country saw through the boom and bust.

Dean Russell: Absolutely. The key point is that it is because of that that we now see conservativism coming back to the fore. We will invest in the heroes on the frontline: the police, the nurses, the doctors and teachers.
If I am honest, that was not what I was going to start my speech with, but I could not resist given the previous speech. I wanted to say that across Watford, which is of course the best place to live, work and play in the country, we have our own challenges with crime. The issue is often not the act of crime but the fear of it and the follow-on effect. A recent spate of burglaries in Watford has caused concern across local communities. We also have briefings and updates on county lines crime, which is driven most prominently by drugs and is awful for those caught up in it and for the communities damaged by it. There is a bigger issue, however, and that is the challenges facing those caught up in crime. We need to be tough on crime, so that people see it is not the right option, but we also need to support them so they know they have an out—another option.
When I was at university, I worked in the car parks at a local airport, and one thing that stuck with me was doing night shifts. Incredibly, I used to patrol the car parks at night—not that the criminals found me particularly frightening. I remember meeting families just back from holiday—two parents, two kids, freezing cold in T-shirts, even though it might be winter here—and arriving to pick up their car, only to find it is not there, but I am there telling them, “I’m sorry, but it’s been stolen”. It ruins holidays and leaves memories that linger for a long time.
We forget sometimes that the police being there and being a deterrent is important. As I mentioned yesterday, we often also forget to put victims first, which means having the right police on the frontline. I urge the Government to make sure that the 20,000 extra police officers are community police officers out on the street. It is no good just having them in back offices, although that is important from an intelligence perspective. When the police are out there, they are not just police officers; they are people to have conversations with and role models for young people, who can look at them and aspire to be not in a criminal gang but a part of the community, helping to stop the problems around them. It also means having conversations and getting that intelligence to know what is happening on the streets and in homes.
There are all sorts of abuses of the system—personal abuses, awful abuse of individuals and abuses of the criminal justice system—and we need to tackle them all. When I speak to the police, they often tell me that one of their biggest challenges is not just that they cannot get out and do the work because they are spending  hours every day doing paperwork, which is a waste of their time, but that they are getting stuck in hospital wards and other places because, having caught somebody, they then have to sit with them for hours waiting for them to be processed. That means that they are not out on the streets catching and deterring criminals. Instead, they are caught in a trap of time.
As part of this approach, we must think not just about the numbers—the 20,000 extra police officers—but about the time they put into their work, so let us multiply that figure by the eight hours a day they spend deterring and catching criminals. That would also help people on the street—our voters, our constituents, the public—to feel safe. Ultimately, is that not the goal of the Government? Is it not our role to make sure that every individual across the country feels safe and knows that their children and elderly parents are safe and will be for years to come. So I applaud the Government’s approach. It is the first brilliant move in making sure we have safer streets and a safer Britain. I applaud them for moving in the right direction for this country.

Gerald Jones: I welcome any increase in police funding, of course, but we have to look at the reality: since 2010, we have lost 20,000 police officers, as well as PCSOs and support staff, which has had a huge impact on communities across the country and in my area. My area is quite unique, certainly in Wales, in that it spans two police authorities: the Merthyr Tydfil County Borough, under South Wales police, in the upper Rhymney Valley part of my constituency, and Gwent police. We have those two perspectives, therefore, and over the past few years we have seen a negative impact on policing across the area.
Even after the first year of the new recruitment, South Wales police will still be down 161 officers and Gwent police will be down 129 officers compared with 2010. Even when we reach the full recruitment the Government are planning, they will still have fewer officers than they inherited in 2010 from the last Labour Government. It is hugely disappointing, when we look at things in the round. Funding for youth services across the country has fallen by 70% since 2010. Together with the reduction in police numbers and the cuts to other areas of community safety, this has had a negative impact on our communities.
Local authorities have been forced to make these cuts because of Tory austerity. As we have heard a number of times this afternoon, cuts have consequences. Let us be absolutely clear: austerity was always a political choice. Other factors include a reduction of almost half —from £145 million to £72 million—in the funding for youth offending teams since 2010, and a 68% increase in the number of knife offences in England and Wales. Taken together, those issues paint a depressing picture of what we have seen under this Tory Government since 2010.
It is good to hear, at last, an admission from Ministers that allowing the police grant to be cut by a third in recent years was a big mistake on the Government’s part, but they must fill that funding gap as well as providing additional officers. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) about the need for the Home Office to consider providing specific funding for Cardiff as the capital city. Although my constituency is some miles from Cardiff, the fact  that South Wales Police has to spend some £4 million on its responsibilities to Cardiff as the capital has a knock-on impact on it, and on other constituencies throughout the South Wales Police area.
The question of the apprenticeship levy is also a cause for ongoing concern. I should be grateful if the Minister confirmed that she will provide money for police officer graduate apprenticeship training for the four Welsh forces, because the uncertainty has gone on for far too long.
Despite the big financial and other challenges, as a result of the hard work of local officers we have some positive news. We still have a commitment to neighbourhood policing in Wales, which—as was mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) and for Newport East (Jessica Morden)—is largely due to the Labour Welsh Government’s commitment to continue to fund 500 PCSOs across Wales, although their own budget has been cut by some £4 billion a year since 2010.
South Wales Police in particular has been doing excellent work in tackling domestic violence, and I hope that the Minister will join me in congratulating the South Wales police and crime commissioner on his foresight in promoting the DRIVE programme to tackle the perpetrators of domestic violence and abuse. Research published by Bristol University last week demonstrates the value of that approach in reducing violent incidents, and the team in Merthyr Tydfil is a particular success story. The commissioner, Alun Michael, has told me that he is so pleased with the work of Safer Merthyr Tydfil, and similar work in Cardiff, that he and the chief constable, Matt Jukes, are determined to roll it out to every part of the South Wales Police area. Intervening with perpetrators as well as supporting victims helps to prevent misery for women and children, while also reducing demand on the NHS, courts and councils as well as the police. That positive approach is having good results for the people I represent.
I urge the Minister to consider the shortfall in the pension fund, which equates to some 5,000 police officers, and could therefore have a really positive impact in increasing the number of officers across the country.
Other Members have paid tribute to their local police authorities. I want to pay tribute to both of mine, South Wales and Gwent, and to thank them for all the work they do in communities throughout my constituency. I particularly thank them for their support for me and my staff in recent months. Most other Members have experienced similar support.
Let me now return to the issue of frontline policing, and urge the Government to recruit an additional 2,000 frontline officers to enhance the approach to community policing across the country. It is important to stress the effectiveness of community and neighbourhood policing in tackling the causes of crime and antisocial behaviour. Tackling what is sometimes perceived as low-level crime is effective in stopping the escalation of crime and disorder.
I urge the Government—and all Members—to support the motion.

Louise Haigh: This has been a fantastic debate, featuring some very experienced and well-rounded views and speeches from Members in all  parts of the House. We have been blessed with two excellent maiden speeches. As a former special constable in the Metropolitan police, I am delighted to welcome another former Metropolitan police officer. I hope that, in future, the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Allan Dorans) will regale us with some tales from his days as a detective inspector. He gave a passionate account of his constituency, and I know that he will serve his constituents well in this place—as, I have no doubt, will the hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger), who made an articulate, thoughtful and interesting speech. It is not often that the House sits in silence, and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman.
We also heard excellent speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens), for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) and for Newport East (Jessica Morden), all of whom spoke about the Welsh Government’s work in securing neighbourhood policing and a commitment to PCSOs despite brutal budget cuts over the last 10 years. In particular, they put forward really thoughtful defences of the work of police staff and the important roles that they play. We heard an excellent speech, as ever, from my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), who is seeking to build on her work and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) on the protect the protectors campaign, which, unfortunately has not borne the fruit that we would have liked it to over the past few months. My hon. Friend made some important points about pensions and the disincentives for progression within the police, which I hope the Minister will respond to when she sums up.
The hon. Members for Fareham (Suella Braverman), for Mansfield (Ben Bradley), for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher), for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) and for Birmingham, Northfield (Gary Sambrook) spoke about their constituency experiences of antisocial behaviour, burglary and knife crime. It is welcome to hear Members from the Conservative Benches speaking openly about these issues in their constituencies and, in some cases, to hear their Damascene conversions to the need for additional officers on the beat in our communities. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison) paid a welcome tribute to South Yorkshire police and the Durham constabulary, with which I would agree, although I am afraid I did not agree with much else in her speech. The hon. Member for Watford (Dean Russell) made an important point about the need for the criminal justice system to put victims at the heart of the system, which unfortunately has not always been done over successive Governments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) made a typically powerful speech on the need for a long-term public health approach—an issue that was, as she said, conspicuous by its absence from the Minister’s opening remarks. I hope that when the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) sums up, she will say something about the continued need for the Government to commit to a public health approach. I also agree with what my hon. Friend said about how important the “Victoria Derbyshire” show has been in the campaign for the Government to commit to a public health approach. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) spoke powerfully  about the particular types of crime in his constituency, including violent crime and rural crime, which often mask organised criminality.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) spoke typically about her experience and expertise on child sexual exploitation and her disappointment, which I share, in the Government’s failure to come forward with a national CSE strategy and in South Yorkshire police’s unwillingness to name the officer that the Independent Office for Police Conduct found had repeatedly let down CSE survivors. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) gave a barnstorming speech on the consequences of officer loss and of cuts to Sure Start, drug services and mental health services. As always, she made a passionate case for drug consumption rooms. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) also made a compelling speech about the cost of losing neighbourhood policing from our communities.
I should like to start on a positive note by welcoming the investment. We have been calling for it for some time, and it offers a generational opportunity to change the make-up and composition of our police with what has the potential to be a watershed moment for diversity in policing. At the current rate of progress, the Metropolitan police will remain disproportionately white for another 100 years. There is not a single chief constable from a black or minority ethnic community, whose representation among the senior leadership is pitifully low. During the last major recruitment under the last Labour Government, diversity increased but not fast enough. We cannot wait a century for the police force to reflect our society, so I would be keen to hear what specific plans the Policing Minister has in place to ensure that this recruitment round will allow diversity to increase far beyond where we are today. Policing can never be effective unless officers understand the communities that they police, but sadly, that understanding and that presence in our communities have been profoundly undermined by the last 10 years of austerity.
There can be no doubt that the consequences of the past decade have been severe: 21,000 officers, 16,000 police staff and 6,800 PCSOs have all gone, and the consequence of those choices—and they were choices—has been the crime that we have seen rising nationwide year on year for the last seven years. Knife crime is at record levels, and police-recorded violent crime has more than doubled. Swingeing cuts across the criminal justice system have led to the lowest-ever prosecution rates across all offences, and in the words of the End Violence Against Women Coalition, rape has been effectively decriminalised, as just 1.4% of offences are prosecuted. There can rarely have been a more challenging climate for our police or a more fundamental failure of the last three Conservative Governments to keep their citizens safe and to deliver justice. In that context, it is extremely welcome to witness the Government’s recent conversion on the necessity of recruiting additional officers. However, the know-how that experienced officers have brought to the job over the past 10 years is gone for good.
Ten years of unnecessary cuts have permanently changed the picture of crime. The former Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan police, whom the Minister mentioned earlier, found that fraudsters “operate with impunity” because the police are not adequately equipped to investigate cases, and millions of victims are being failed. In our  towns and cities, ruthless organised criminal gangs now trade children as part of a profitable enterprise. The Children’s Commissioner estimates that 27,000 children between the ages of 10 and 17 are part of a gang, and this is about not only police cuts, as we have heard time and again, but the soaring numbers of children who are in care, who are homeless or living in temporary accommodation, who are excluded from school, and who cannot rely on youth services or social services. All that has left them lacking in resilience and support and horribly vulnerable to the exploitation of gangs. It will take more than recruiting officers, as welcome as that recruitment is, to bear down on the complex picture of crime in this country.
What is more, under current plans officer numbers will not even be restored to 2010 levels. Resources will be allocated via the outdated and inadequate funding formula, which the Government have been promising to reform since 2015. The Policing Minister himself said:
“For many years it has been an unspoken secret—something that senior police officers sniggered about behind their hands—that the formula that was put in place 10 years ago was so manifestly unfair, but nevertheless politically sensitive, that politicians would never have the courage to meddle with it. During the four years that I was deputy Mayor for policing, there were constant complaints about the police formula and nobody really had the cojones, if that is parliamentary language, to get a grip on it.”—[Official Report, 4 November 2015; Vol. 601, c. 1060.]
Does the Minister wonder whether using what he called a “manifestly unfair” method to fund his recruitment pledge is the right thing to do? When will he get the cojones to reform it?
In the absolute best-case scenario, where 20,000 of the new recruits go to local forces, 22 of the 43 forces, many experiencing the most punishing levels of violent crime, will not see their numbers restored. The reality is that the spending review confirmed that territorial police officers will not be the whole picture and that other national priorities will also take their share, which would leave a staggering 25 police forces down on where they were 10 years ago: Greater Manchester down 1,000, Hampshire down 700, Merseyside down 600, Staffordshire down 400, and the West Midlands down 1,100.
Across the length and breadth of this country, communities that will have heard the Prime Minister’s promise to restore police numbers are set to be badly let down. Is this not fundamentally a question of trust? Are those not the same communities that heard the Prime Minister’s promise to invest in them and then witnessed the local authority fair funding review cut £320 million from hard-pressed councils? Will those communities not have the right to ask whether promises made seem, for this Prime Minister, harder to keep?

John Healey: Quite honestly, I do not know where to start. For the thousands of people who will sleep out tonight, the level of the housing market is a long way from their concern. If the hon. Gentleman does not like the points that I am making and regards them as political point scoring, let me give him some straight facts. Directly as a result of Ministers’ decisions over the last 10 years, 86,000 households are now homeless and in temporary accommodation—up 71%; 127,000 children have no home—up 75%—and many are placed in temporary accommodation miles from their school, their friends and their community; and 4,600 people are sleeping rough on the streets—up 165%. Of course, every charity working in the homeless field and every expert knows that this is a huge undercount of the true scale of street homelessness. Just today, in a new report from St Mungo’s, we learn that 12,000 people who were homeless last year also went without the drugs or alcohol addiction help they needed.
At a time when perhaps some of the old certainties in politics appear to be in flux, one thing is certain and one thing remains true: the legacy of every Conservative Government is high homelessness, and the job of every Labour Government is to fix the problem.

John Healey: I am going to make some progress now because so many hon. Members on both sides want to speak.
Our homelessness crisis now, as it was in the 1990s, is the direct result of decisions taken by Conservative Ministers over the previous decade. There have been 13 separate cuts to housing benefit, including the hated bedroom tax, and the breaking of the link between the level of housing benefit and rents for private renters. Some £1 billion a year has been cut from local homelessness services. There are almost 9,000 fewer homeless hostel beds now, at a time when they have never been needed more. We see £2,200 extra a year for average private rents, with no action from the Government to protect private renters either from eviction or from huge rent hikes.
Only 6,287 new social rented homes were built in this country last year. That is the second lowest year since the second world war, with the lowest being two years before that. If anyone doubts the significance of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), in Labour’s last year in government, we built nearly 40,000 new social rented homes. If the Conservatives had only kept building those homes at the same rate as Labour did, we would now have in this country an extra 200,000 social rented homes, which is more than enough for every household homeless and in temporary accommodation; more than enough for every person sleeping rough on the streets; and more than enough for every individual in every homeless hostel across the country.
After 10 years, the hard truth is that homelessness is high and rising, and what the Government are doing is not working. Based on the Government’s own statistics, at the current rate of progress, Ministers will not end rough sleeping in this country before 2082. On current progress, they will not even bring the level of rough sleeping back to the level it was in 2010 for nearly 40 years. Meanwhile, the number of households that are homeless and the number of children who are homeless continue to rise.

Robert Jenrick: I beg to move an amendment, line 1, to leave out from “House” to end and add:
“notes the Government’s commitment to ending rough-sleeping in this Parliament; further notes that the latest annual figures showed a fall in rough sleeping numbers; notes the steps already taken by the Government including implementing the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 and delivering successful programmes like the Rough Sleeping Initiative and Housing First pilots; welcomes the Government’s commitment of £1.2 billion to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping; notes the Secretary of State’s announcement this week of an extra £112 million for the Government’s Rough Sleeping Initiative, taking the total sum being invested over the next year to £437 million; notes this House’s concern that more is done to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping so that everyone has access to accommodation when they need it most; and notes the clear steps this Government is taking to achieve this.”
We are fortunate to live in a country that is widely and rightly regarded as one of the most fair, prosperous and advanced in the world. It is, therefore, a serious moral failure that we still have people sleeping on our streets and struggling to secure something so basic as a roof over their heads. That feels especially poignant at this time of year, when most of us take for granted a warm bed on a cold night. The deaths of people sleeping rough right here on the doorsteps of Parliament in recent years have been a sobering reminder of the challenges we face. That was brought home to me powerfully when I volunteered at a homeless shelter in Birmingham on Christmas day, and when I had the privilege of meeting a lady called Claire in Walsall just before Christmas, who is one of over 200 people to have been helped off the streets by the Housing First pilots. Initiatives such as Housing First give us all some hope.

Robert Jenrick: I am very happy to praise anybody who has been involved in Housing First. As I said, a few days before Christmas I visited a Housing First pilot in Walsall and was tremendously impressed by the work there. I met a lady who had been taken off the streets in Walsall. She had been sleeping rough in a park for a long time, but was spending her first Christmas for a number of years in a home of her own and would shortly be having her children over for Christmas lunch, which she had not managed to enjoy, I think, for over decade. It is a tribute to the housing associations that  are willing to participate in Housing First. I want more housing associations to do so. We will clearly need to provide both the funding and the certainty of that funding, because it is a significant endeavour for a housing association. That housing association, for example, is not only giving property and a home to that lady, but promising to provide wrap-around care, an individual to visit or phone that person, every day for up to three years. That is an incredibly sophisticated and bespoke level of care, but one that is working extremely well.

Robert Jenrick: I think I have answered that question. We do not recognise some of the figures that we have heard. In fact, the evidence that I have seen has suggested that rent arrears have fallen over time, in the case of those individuals who have moved on to universal credit.
To support the rough sleeping initiative programmes such as those that I have visited in recent months, I allocated this week up to £112 million to fund the programme for a third year. That represents a 30% increase in funding for this already proven successful programme. Councils, charities and organisations throughout the country will be able to use that money to fund up to 6,000 new bed spaces and 2,500 rough sleeping support staff.

Lisa Cameron: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way—he has been extremely generous with interventions. Does he agree we should commend organisations such as Dogs on the Street, which cares for homeless people with pets? Those pets very often are people’s only lifeline, yet it is difficult to get into a hostel if you have a pet. That must be addressed.

Robert Jenrick: I should be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman. He will not be surprised to hear that we have already met a range of stakeholders, including representatives of Shelter and other important organisations, to discuss this issue. We want to ensure that the social housing White Paper does the job that is required, and we are working closely with organisations such as Grenfell United to learn the lessons of that tragedy. We are also working with organisations such as Shelter in connection with our Renters’ Rights Bill, which will bring an end to no-fault evictions and create other important initiatives, including a lifetime deposit which will help those on low incomes and others throughout society by making it easier and cheaper for tenants to move.
We have a clear plan—backed by substantial investment and a proactive approach, and widely welcomed—to tackle homelessness and end rough sleeping for good. As the Prime Minister has made clear, that is an absolute priority for him and for this new Government. We are encouraged by the progress that we have made on rough sleeping in the last two years, and through measures such as the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, the Housing First pilots and the rough sleeping initiative we are seeing results, but we know that we have to go much further to give some of the most vulnerable people in our society the future they deserve. I believe we can do this; I believe we must do this; and, as a compassionate, one nation Conservative Government, we will not rest until we achieve it.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: If the hon. Gentleman thinks we should have wet accommodation, does he support consumption rooms or shooting galleries so that we can also help people to ween off these awful drugs?

Liam Byrne: I have a very different set of prescriptions for some of the problems set out by the hon. Member for Gravesham (Adam Holloway).
Debates in this place are always political, but they sometimes touch on the personal, too. I am the adult son of an alcoholic. Since I lost my father to a lifelong struggle with alcohol five years ago, I have sought to campaign for those in my home city of Birmingham who are self-medicating trauma with drugs and with alcohol. The reality is that what we see on our streets is that the safety net in this country—the social insurance system of which we were once proud—has now so comprehensively collapsed and the holes in that safety net are so big that anyone now hit by a twist of fate without a family to help them will fall straight through and hit the pavement, where in my region, on average, they are now dying every 10 days. That is why I say to this House that the subject of this debate is a moral emergency, which is why the response we need from Her Majesty’s Government is an awful lot stronger than what we heard today.
In cities such as Birmingham, we may have planes in the sky but we have homeless people dying in the doorways. Having this in the second city of the fifth richest country on earth is not a morally acceptable situation. I could give the House a barrage of statistics—

Liam Byrne: I will come on to Walsall in a minute. I could give the House a barrage of statistics about how rough sleeping in my city is up by 1,000% since 2010; about how the number of homeless children has trebled; and about how we now have a crisis of overcrowding, with one in five homes in inner-city Birmingham and the Black Country now overcrowded. But I do not want to talk about statistics. I want to talk about a story. It is the story of a man I met in an underpass next to Birmingham New Street station when I was out on a Sunday morning last year with an amazing team of people called Outreach Angels. We saw a man lying on the floor in acute distress—a double amputee next to his wheelchair. This was in an underpass that stank of urine. He had been there for three days, and he was still dressed in his hospital gown with a hospital tag on his wrist. It took us nearly two hours to get that man an ambulance. How on earth have we come to this in this country?
Thank God across our region we now have a coalition of kindness that is fighting back, with extraordinary people and organisations, including Hope into Action: Black Country; Matt Lambert, who does great work in Wolverhampton; Nobby Clarke, the Coventry night shelter and Hope Coventry; Langar Aid and Khalsa Aid International; SIFA Fireside; the outreach teams across the west midlands, which are doing extraordinary work; and Councillors Yvonne Davies and Sharon Thompson, who do extraordinary work and who have taken back control of the Housing First programme in our region, because they understand that for Housing First to work we first need homes. Can we guess the grand total of the number of social homes built last year in the hon. Gentleman’s borough? It was zero. The number of social homes built in the west midlands last year fell by 17%, and is down by nearly 80% since 2010. So I will take his intervention, but will he at least agree that we cannot bring together a shared agenda to tackle this problem unless we start building council homes again?

James Cartlidge: It is a pleasure a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne). He spoke with great passion, which I share and I am sure the whole House shares. We want to end homelessness. It is a shared goal.
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a director of a shared-ownership property portal, so I have a great interest in the issue of first-time buyers. In fact, when I was involved in the business day-to-day, before I became an MP, we used to give part of all our mortgage commissions to the Broadway homelessness charity, which is now part of St Mungo’s. From my experience of working with Broadway and meeting many homeless clients, I can say, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Adam Holloway) did, that one should resist the temptation to generalise about the reasons why people have found themselves in very difficult circumstances. It was often drugs or alcohol, in particular it was family breakdown, and many times it was a combination of them all. I therefore very much welcome the additional £112 million that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced. It will include £30 million for mental health, which is very welcome. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham said, health is a significant issue in this context.
Having said all that—that we cannot generalise on the individual factors and that each case is different—we must all be concerned about the worrying underlying structural trend in causes of homelessness, which is that there has undoubtedly been a significant increase in the number of people becoming statutorily homeless because they have reached a certain point in an assured shorthold tenancy and been unable to renegotiate it, the rent has then been pushed up, they cannot afford it, and the property has been re-let. That is incredibly worrying, because more and more families are now in rental accommodation because of the affordability crisis that I referred to earlier in an intervention on the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey). The price of homes has gone up hugely under successive Governments. It is a widespread problem, particularly in our largest cities. So, what can we do about it?
When we talk about high rents, the other side of the coin is of course wages. There is no doubt that this period in which the end of an AST has become a factor in rising homelessness has coincided with a period of flat wages and significant rising rents, particularly in London and the south-east. The good news is that wages are now rising at their fastest rate in a decade—that is an incredibly important part of the issue—but on the other side of rents, the Government are entirely right that we need more supply. We cannot get around that. If a tenant finds themselves at the end of their tenancy, having to renegotiate, and the landlord knows that they can easily re-let—that there is an under-supply in the market —we know who will be wearing the boot on which side of the equation, and that will mean pressure on the tenant to accept a higher increase than they otherwise would. We need more supply and more choice.
I wish to make two points on how we can move forward. There is no easy solution, but what is called the build-to-rent sector offers a potential solution. Build to rent is generally institutionally funded and there is huge potential finance available for it from City institutions  and so on. It is growing significantly: there was a 20% increase in build-to-rent development last year, and I believe that 148,000 units have been developed in the UK under build to rent. The key thing about build to rent is that under the national planning policy framework, tenancies should be offered of at least three years—what are called family-friendly tenancies. If we were to see a widespread increase in the supply of these types of properties in the market, with better-quality tenancies, it would force those in the sector who may not offer such good tenancies to improve their offer.

James Cartlidge: That is a very fair point, but the Government are, of course, looking at it, and we await further details. None the less, it is a perfectly valid point. I was simply arguing that, ultimately, the best thing that can happen to those tenants in that position is for them to have choice—to have more supply. Here we have a sector with build to rent that can bring significant extra supply. When we talk about supply, the key thing is additionality, which is a terribly technical word. In other words, it really is additional stock that has come about as a result of an intervention in the planning or funding system, and that additional stock would not have happened without that intervention. It is an incredibly important point.
I also want to talk about regeneration. If we look at the NPPF, we will see that there is encouragement for that type of tenure, for build to rent, where there is large-scale urban regeneration. Something that concerns me about the current housing dialogue, particularly in some Labour-controlled London boroughs, is that, let us be honest, regeneration has become something of a dirty work. It is seen as enforced gentrification by some. Actually, there is a point in that. There have been urban regeneration schemes in some areas, particularly in London, where, arguably, some of the people who lived in the development before the regeneration lost out compared with what happened afterwards. It is difficult, because, in theory, the great thing with regeneration is that greater density brings more supply and improvement to the current stock for those who already live in the development. It is about regenerating and improving an area. That is something that has been supported by parties from across the divide, but we need to see much more of it and more joined-up support from Government for it. We can build on greenfield, on brownfield or on existing stock through regeneration. There is nothing else available unless we reclaim the sea through polderisation, and I do not think that that is about to happen any time soon.
If we do not have significant urban regeneration, we see disproportionate pressure on the countryside, and easy planning decisions of just building more and more on greenfield sites. Brownfield sites come under pressure  when we need economic development—when we need land for industry and so on. Regeneration is the key, and that combination of large-scale build-to-rent developments in densely populated urban areas is one part—only one part—of delivering that increased supply so that there is less pressure on rents and, as wages increase, we can reduce the number of people becoming statutorily homeless at the end of an assured shorthold tenancy. There is no easy single answer, but those factors can form a joined-up, holistic, one-nation Conservative housing policy.

Abena Oppong-Asare: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech on an issue that has such huge importance for so many in my constituency and beyond.
I start by praising my predecessor, Teresa Pearce. Many in this House will know her as a fighter, a socialist and a feminist. She served our community with passion and distinction first as a councillor and then as a champion in this place. Many of my newly elected colleagues have big boots to fill, but none more so than me. I am sure that the whole House will join me in wishing her a very well earned and happy retirement. I also pay tribute to Teresa’s predecessor, John Austin, who has given me fantastic support. He now spends time with his family and his allotment. John, if you are watching this, I am still waiting for my jam.
Each of us has travelled our own path to represent our constituents in this House. This morning, I travelled by tube and train—just in case you were wondering, Madam Deputy Speaker. In all seriousness, I stand here along with my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) as the joint first female MP of Ghanaian descent. My journey into politics has not been easy. I did not come from a political background. I remember telling a careers adviser that I wanted to get into politics and learn more about working for an MP. I was laughed at and literally told that the chances of someone like me getting a job in Parliament were very slim, and to not even bother trying. I will not misuse parliamentary privilege by naming him, but I hope he is watching me now. When I see injustice, I always turn anger into action. That feeling of unfairness drove me to challenge the barriers that I faced as a black woman. I became the first ever black chair of the Labour Women’s Network, and I mentor and train many women like me, who do not normally get a chance in politics. It is also why I became a Unison grassroots trade unionist.
I am able to represent my community in part thanks to the trailblazers who came before us: Lord Boateng, Bernie Grant, Baroness Amos and, of course, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). Their legacy in the House can be seen throughout the Chamber today, and they remain an inspiration to those of us who follow them. I also stand here on the shoulders of a century of sisters who came before me, and I am delighted that the parliamentary Labour party now reflects the gender breakdown of the  country—51% female. As the chair of the Labour Women’s Network, building on the work of my predecessors Liv Bailey and Jo Cox MP, I could not be prouder of the role that the Labour Women’s Network has played in training hundreds of women for public office, introducing and defending all-women shortlists, tackling sexual harassment and abusive language in politics, ending the scourge of all-male panels, and introducing parental leave arrangements for councillors and MPs.
My constituency of Erith and Thamesmead is diverse, beautiful and fascinating. Erith pier offers stunning views of the Thames. Crossness pumping station, built by Sir Joseph Bazalgette, is a Victorian engineering masterpiece that is described as “a cathedral of ironwork”. The ruin of the abbey at Lesnes is a scheduled ancient monument that is haunted by the ghost of one of its former monks. Why not come for a visit, Madam Deputy Speaker? I will treat you to a fry-up at Zehra’s Café in Plumstead, some chips from a from the Frying Pan in Belvedere, or a cheeky cake from Crumbs bakery in Northumberland Heath. You can come to see the mighty Erith Town football town, and I will bring along some Ghanaian jollof rice—accept no imitations. There is one thing that I admit my constituency is sadly lacking; it contains one of the only parts of London without a train station. Simply put, that must change. I will be campaigning with local people to ensure that Thamesmead is put well and truly on the transport map.
I am here today to debate homelessness—an issue that, sadly, all too many of my constituents have experienced at first hand. Across the country, the numbers of people forced to rely on temporary accommodation are stark, but it is the stories behind the statistics that are truly heartbreaking: the family placed in accommodation two train journeys from their children’s school, travelling for hours to and from, desperately trying to ensure that their children can make it to school while they try to get to work; the mum and her infant daughter placed in a hotel that has no fridge for her to store milk; and the family with a young child placed by another borough in a shared property with someone on the sex offenders register. All of us in this place will have our own litany of examples—each harrowing, and each a stain on the reputation of this Government.
The Government must step up to end homelessness, rather than stepping over the homeless to get into this place. The housing crisis is one of the great injustices of our time. The people of Erith and Thamesmead have put their faith in me, and I will always fight to ensure that they have a safe and secure place to call home. When I see injustice, I always turn anger into action.

Michael Tomlinson: What a great pleasure it is to be called so early in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare), who spoke with poise and with passion. She mentioned that she does not come from a political background. She will find that many of us in this place, including me, share that with her. I am disappointed not to have been invited for a cheeky cake. I hope that she remedies that in due course. I look forward to her future contributions in this place.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) also mentioned passion, but I want to start by mentioning compassion, because there is no doubt that there is no lack of compassion among those on the Conservative Benches, just as there is no lack of compassion among those on the Opposition Benches.
The debate so far has focused on rough sleeping, and I too will devote a large portion of this short speech to that issue. As the Secretary of State himself set out, it is encouraging that, according to the latest count, the number of rough sleepers count, has decreased, but of course it is only a very small step in the right direction. I welcome it, but far more needs to be done. I am encouraged that locally in my constituency, Dorset County Council has reported that the number of rough sleepers, while still too high, has fallen substantially, from 38 to 18. I commend the council and its partners for the excellent work they have done. I think there are two main reasons for the decrease: first, there is no doubt that the Housing First programme has made a difference; secondly, the Navigator scheme does simple things such as signposting the most vulnerable people in the right direction. The Housing First programme is helping those who have experienced multiple homelessness.
Perhaps one of the most important pieces of legislation was mentioned by the Secretary of State: the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) that became the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017. I was delighted and honoured to be asked to serve on the Committee that considered that Bill, and I remember well going through it clause by clause over a period of weeks. The Act, which had support on both sides of this House, has been referred to as the biggest change to homelessness legislation in a generation, but while there have been some encouraging signs of improvement, it is clear that to fulfil both the spirit of the Act and our manifesto commitment, more still needs to be done. I am encouraged that the Government are pressing on with the consultation and looking at how to make the best use of prevention.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Adam Holloway) rightly mentioned drug addiction. There is no doubt that many rough sleepers are unwilling or unable to take up offers of accommodation because of addiction or substance misuse; alternatively, as the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) mentioned, there may be practical issues, such as having a beloved pet. By taking a more pragmatic approach in relation to Housing First and providing sufficient support for councils, clearly more can be done to support the most vulnerable into housing. The Secretary of State mentioned funding, and of course I welcome the £470,000 that Dorset County Council is to receive, as well as the £1.4 million for Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council.
I must mention a number of local organisations. Routes to Roots, a charity in Poole that I have supported, does excellent work in supporting some of the most vulnerable people who are on the streets—yes, even in Poole. Many of those threatened with homelessness are young people, often from chaotic backgrounds. Waverley House in Wimborne is an organisation run by Bournemouth Churches Housing Association. I have had the privilege of meeting residents and staff, who provide, in particular, peer support, with key workers or mentors who can work alongside these young people and help them to manage their lives—not just to get  accommodation but actually to stay in it once they are there. Housing is, of course, essential, but ongoing and consistent support from schemes such as Waverley House is also vital. I encourage the Government to look at those successful schemes—to look at what has worked—and to ensure that money is channelled to them. All young people need a stable home, but they also need consistent boundaries and guidance from supportive adults. That is exactly what support workers, key workers and mentors give. The additional funding is welcome, but I encourage the Government to look at schemes that are already successful, even if they are small-scale, to see what works and what can be scaled up. The Government have shown a clear desire and they have shown their will through increased funding, and together we can end the scourge of homelessness.

Adam Holloway: One of the factors that I think people do not consider is that if we add a couple of hundred thousand to our population every year and fail to build new homes, at some point that will inevitably impact on the people at the very bottom.

Tracey Crouch: I thank the hon. Member for his point, and I also think it is really important for those of us with constituencies in the south-east that at some point we discuss the problem of having people who are normally housed in London boroughs being moved out of London and into other councils. Last year, 20,000 households in London were offered alternative accommodation outside the local authority that accepted their homelessness application. This is an important issue on which we need to have a debate.
I am a fully subscribed member of the official counting method does not quite work gang. It is a one-night snapshot in November, and it is subject to being skewed by various factors. I know the figures are not out yet, but unofficially I hear that in Medway, Maidstone, and Tonbridge and Malling, the figures have declined. But just one person sleeping rough on our streets is one too many. Medway Council has received a significant chunk of the money that the Government have distributed,  with £1.1 million to spend on specific activities. Measures introduced by the council included a Somewhere Safe centre, an assertive outreach team, a designated rough sleeper co-ordinator, 11 units of supported accommodation, and so on—exactly the holistic approach we need.

Tracey Crouch: I concur entirely. People need a health worker, a mental health worker, and a private sector brokerage worker—all those holistic issues.
Time is running short, so let me list a few things we need to do. First, we must ring-fence an allocation for rough sleeping, so that Housing First and other schemes can be planned over a whole Parliament, rather than being planned ad hoc or for short periods. Many of those who sleep rough have severe mental health conditions, so NHS England should prioritise mental health services to complement the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 and the rough sleepers initiative.
We need much better working between the Ministry of Defence, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to support those released from prison and help them to have a roof over their heads. It is ridiculous that we release prisoners at 4 o’clock on a Friday and are surprised when they find themselves on the street. We must expand social impact bonds, deliver a proper empty homes strategy, and scrap the blunt instrument that is the Vagrancy Act 1824. There is no place in our modern society for criminalising those who live on our streets. Most of all, however, we need compassion, co-ordination, and to tackle the root causes of homelessness if we are to end it in all its forms, and we need to do that now.

Clive Betts: I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) and for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) on their excellent maiden speeches. I am sure that the warm tributes they rightly paid to their predecessors were recognised by many Members across the House.
The Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 is the only Act to have involved pre-legislative scrutiny of a private Member’s Bill by a Select Committee, and the benefits of that were shown by the involvement not only of the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who introduced the Bill, but by that of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, the Government, Crisis and the Local Government Association. They produced an Act that is good in so many respects, as it concentrates on the prevention of homelessness, while also dealing with the issues faced by those who are not a priority for housing provision, but who still need appropriate advice and assistance.
I wish to consider how the Act might be made to work better. At the beginning of the process the Committee was concerned about a lack of funding, and the LGA still expresses those concerns. At Sheffield City Council, the Director of Housing and Neighbourhoods, Janet Sharpe, and cabinet member Paul Wood, told me that generally speaking they have had good working relationships  with Government officials. Indeed, I think Sheffield is now regarded as something of a model for how the Act should be implemented, and I receive virtually no complaints from constituents about homelessness—a real change from where we used to be.
The Director of Housing and Neighbourhoods also told me that the council is having to take on more staff to deal with the 56-day extension to the prevention requirements in the Act, and to offer extra advice and assistance to people in non-priority categories. However, those staff are not covered by the extra money provided by the Government. She also said that, as opposed to previously when the supporting people programme provided all the money, the council now has to apply for a whole range of different funding streams to get the necessary resources to deliver on the Act. Those schemes must be applied for, monitored, and contracts drawn up. Indeed, the council is employing an officer just to do that applying and monitoring. Can we not change that and make it simpler?
Secondly, because of the extra demand, and the extra requirement for temporary accommodation with the 56-day rule, in order to avoid increasing the number of families in bed and breakfasts, the local authority wants to build two new projects for temporary accommodation. I support that good and positive move, but Homes England’s policies are not flexible enough to recognise the difference in funding needs and requirements for temporary accommodation, compared with ordinary residential accommodation. Will the Secretary of State look again at that?
Those are two proposals from Sheffield’s housing department for ways in which the Act, and its delivery, could be improved.

Richard Graham: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), with whom I worked on supported housing issues. He took a less political line than the opening speech by the shadow Secretary of State, which I personally felt rather overlooked the fact that homelessness and rough sleeping is a major social issue for all of us in this House, particularly those of us with urban constituencies. It is what we have to tackle. We have to take ownership of it in our own patch.
How are we trying to tackle homelessness in Gloucester? It is worth noting that under successive Labour MPs during the previous Labour Government from 1997 to 2010 not one additional unit of social housing was built in our city, so although it is fine to talk about making 8,000 homes immediately available, I am afraid that that is not what happened when the shadow Secretary of State was a Minister for eight of those 13 years. I am glad that today, after good work done by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer in writing off all of Gloucester’s housing debt, we now have Gloucester City Homes building new social accommodation. We need to do more of that—I am in no doubt about that.
Let me highlight one particular issue that I suspect others will also face in their constituencies. The major issue for us in Gloucester at the moment is the number of EU nationals with no recourse to public funds. I am afraid it will be the reason why the number of rough sleepers on the statutory count, when the results are announced publicly, will have risen from eight in 2018  to probably close to 20 in 2019, which is not what the Secretary of State wants to see. He wants those figures to come down. He has provided us with funding, but the truth is that two thirds of our rough sleepers are EU nationals in that situation. I know that for London and Birmingham, he has waived the no-recourse situation. I would be grateful if the Minister, in replying to the debate, could say a little bit about what more can be done, or whether he believes this issue will just fade away at the end of the year after we finish the transition period and people coming from the EU will have to have longer term jobs. That will undoubtedly have an impact on the problem for us and I suspect elsewhere in the country.
It is also worth highlighting the fact that the money given by the Government to help us with rough sleepers has made a huge difference. We have been able to house 100 people through the “Somewhere Safe to Stay” hubs and I welcome the additional funding that has been announced this year. It will make a difference to maintaining the hubs and expanding the outreach. I am convinced that we can get on top of these things.
Lastly, I would like to highlight the work done by a new charity, HaVinG – A Voice in Gloucester. We aim to try to provide a pathway not just for housing but for skills and, later, jobs. That is the long-term solution to this problem.

Anneliese Dodds: In the brief time I have available—I am very sorry the Secretary of State is leaving, just as I am starting to speak—I want to focus on the Government’s approach to delivering directly funded services for rough sleepers. I am sure we could all talk a lot about the drivers of rough sleeping, but I want to focus on the approach to directly funding those services, which is very problematic. It is based on a very short-term approach, which is failing many people who need those services. I will set out why in the time I have left.
I welcomed the stamp duty surcharge, especially once the Government had resiled from their previous decision to slash the amount coming from it by two thirds. At least it has been put back to the previous amount. I welcomed it because I thought it would lead to a situation where we would not have a bidding-led system of a pot into which different bodies have to bid for very short-term funded projects. But no, we seem to have the same approach now. The problem is that it does not lead to reliable support for projects that we know work. For example, in Oxford we have received funds from the rough sleeper initiative and the rapid rehousing pathway. I am really grateful for them—of course I am—but they are only for a year or 18 months. We have had absolutely brilliant projects— the hub at Bonn Square and the Trailblazer project—but they were funded only for the short term. Virtually by the time staff had been taken on and services got going, the funding was evaporating.
Oxford City Council has just set up a brilliant facility, Floyds Row, investing £2 million in capital—of course, it is not the authority that should be funding it in the first place, but it has done so because of the rough sleeping crisis we have in Oxford—but it will now be at the behest of finding different pots of short-term funding to deliver the running of that facility, as is St Mungo’s, which will be helping with it. So much effort is going  into chasing around after short-term funds—I could not have agreed more with what my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) said about the situation there. This is really problematic not just for the staff who are trying to deliver excellent services without knowing whether they will be employed in the future, but for the users. We have the data and we know the evidence. We know that when the same workers are delivering services, especially to those who are hardest to reach, they are far more effective. I would be delighted to send the Minister evidence from the Old Fire Station, working with Crisis, which shows that clearly in black and white. We need that continuity of provision. If he reports back on anything at the end of the debate, please deal with the issue of the funding being too short term.

Ben Everitt: It is a pleasure to follow the maiden speeches from Opposition Members. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) was incredibly generous to his predecessor, who was clearly very well thought of by Members on both sides of the House, and the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) was passionate and sincere—I am sure I join everybody else in this place in hoping that her careers adviser saw her speech.
There are 48 rough sleepers in Milton Keynes—that is, of course, 48 too many—but the really shocking statistic is that there are 2,244 people in temporary accommodation. This is a complex issue. Each of those statistics has an individual behind it who will have complex needs, such as domestic violence, adverse childhood experiences, substance misuse—be that alcohol or narcotics—poor school attainment and attendance, family breakdown, debt and mental health issues that are either underlying and exacerbated by homelessness or caused by homelessness and other issues.
The extra money does help. Earlier this month, Milton Keynes received £1.7 million more to tackle homelessness and only this week it received £870,000 to target rough sleeping. Obviously, however, there is a correlation between the number of people who are homeless and the number of homes that are available, so I welcome the Government’s record and the Secretary of State’s commitments to delivering more affordable homes.
Planning is a complex and devolved issue. At this point, I should declare my interest as a district councillor on Aylesbury Vale District Council, which deals with planning activities, but Milton Keynes is the area that I have been elected to represent in Parliament and Milton Keynes Council has been Labour-run since 2014. It recently released a plan to double the size of Milton Keynes—I say plan but it is more of a land grab, complete with a map with “Dad’s Army” style arrows going north, south, east and west into other boroughs. While it plans to double the size of Milton Keynes, a shocking 24,000 existing planning applications have currently not been built out.
We need to build not only more houses, but the right kind of houses in the right places, so that our homeless people can have somewhere that they can practically expect to live. I welcome the Government’s commitment to building more affordable houses and I look forward to voting for the next housing Bill.

Layla Moran: As I am sure we all agree, even one person sleeping rough in this country is one person too many. I am delighted to hear that the Government are going to make sure that this does not happen by the end of this Parliament, but I want to ensure that everything that we can do now is also happening. We can do one thing immediately: scrap the Vagrancy Act 1824. That would encourage all agencies to take a much more holistic approach to the problem.
For those who do not know, only sections 3 and 4 of the Act are left, and the Act makes rough sleeping illegal. This growing body of opinion has been formed on the back of a campaign in Oxford run by the students, who could see with their own eyes how fast the number of people affected was increasing in our city centre. I brought the matter here and I am delighted to see how many Members from across the House have now taken it into their hearts, because the legislation does not, I believe, reflect our values. The stance is also popular; a new survey from Crisis shows that 71% of people do not believe that sleeping rough should be illegal.
I found myself in violent agreement with the thrust of the points raised by the hon. Member for Gravesham (Adam Holloway), who argued that in the case of many of the rough sleepers he has met, rough sleeping is actually a health issue. That is what we need to focus on.
It is all very well, in this room, to say that we want to change the law and take a different approach, but people also judge us by our actions. I draw attention to what happened last year, when the homeless gentleman died on our doorstep in the Westminster tube entrance. The answer to that from this place was to evict the group of homeless people who were there, and put up a gate. For shame! It means that now, as we walk in, we do not have to be bothered by that in the same way; they are slightly further down. I do not think that that reflects the values of Members in this House, and I think we need to do things as soon as possible to show what does.
The Government insist on a review and are waiting for that to conclude, but it is not necessary. Crisis, which I have been working with, has done that. It can show how it is possible to repeal not just section 4 but also section 3. To those who say that the Act is not used, I say that it is. In 2018, 11 people were prosecuted for sleeping rough. That is not right; it must be stopped. Let us make this the year that we scrap the Vagrancy Act.

Lyn Brown: I want Government Members to understand the root causes of much of the homelessness in West Ham. More than a third of my constituents work hard for less than the London living wage. A month’s rent for a cheap two-bedroom property in Newham is £1,300. If someone has one of the lower quarter of pay packets locally, they will earn just £1,266 to pay the bills. It is less than the rent alone. For many, it is a choice between food and rent, between buying new shoes for their children and the rent, between paying the bills and avoiding debt and the rent. Most people choose the rent because they know in their hearts that nothing is more damaging for them and their children than becoming homeless, and yet homelessness is rising and rising.
The Government have chosen to increase housing payments by 1.7% this year, and that is good. It is better than zero—even with my maths, I get that—but it will do nothing to repair the damage, and in a huge part of London, including Newham, not a single extra two-bedroom home will be made affordable by this increase. For us, it is actually worse, because rents in Newham are so unaffordable that we received a little extra help: a 3% uplift in housing support for people on social security. We are now losing that 3% and getting 1.7%. The Government’s decisions are making rents less affordable, not more affordable, in Newham. Newham—which has the second-highest child poverty rate in the country. Newham—which has the highest homelessness rate in the country. Newham—where one in 12 of our children are without a safe, secure, warm home. It beggars belief.
Newham now has only 17,000 council properties, which is 10,000 fewer than the number of people on the waiting list alone. The only way we will reduce the cost to people’s lives and to the public purse is through building social homes with social rents for all that need them. West Ham needs a Government who will commit to that, and any Government who do not must live with the responsibility for the continued poverty and homelessness that is completely and utterly blighting the lives of the people I represent.

Neil Coyle: Absolutely. As the Secretary of State mentioned, there is often an overlap with mental health issues, but we are not going to identify the cause if the deaths are not investigated.
My final request today is that we use the Domestic Abuse Bill to help the 2,000 people last year who fled domestic violence and were provided an immediate refuge but did not qualify for long-term accommodation. The A Safe Home campaign aims to break the link between homelessness and domestic abuse. No one should be left facing a choice between returning to a violent, dangerous partner or being made homeless, and the Bill should ensure that everyone fleeing domestic abuse who is homeless is automatically considered in priority need. I hope that the Minister will agree today to meet representatives of that cross-party campaign to see how we can make that happen in the Bill.

Mohammad Yasin: Homelessness is the manifestation of a society that is not working. The soaring numbers of rough sleepers and people living in unstable accommodation should shame this Government, because it betrays a policy agenda that has utterly failed people. The housing crisis has made it difficult for anyone facing relationship breakdown to get a new home, and the crisis in social care has made it difficult for anyone with mental health problems to access services. People can wait months or even years to get help, by which point their health has deteriorated to such an extent that their problems compound and become even more difficult and costly to treat or they lose their jobs and become unable to pay their mortgage or rent.
While I am pleased that the number of people sleeping rough in Bedford has fallen thanks to a number of initiatives, including Bedford Borough Council’s “Assessment & Somewhere Safe to Stay” hub, the SMART Prebend Centre, the King’s Arms Project’s night centre, and the work of the Salvation Army and other charities, levels of homelessness continue to rise. From my constituency inbox, I know that the homelessness problem is not so much on the streets but hidden in temporary accommodation. More and more people and families are living in totally inadequate, unstable accommodation.
This month’s brilliant report by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism found that only five of the 200 two-bed homes in Bedford are affordable to rent on housing benefit. The rise in the allowance from April under the Government’s new proposals will mean that only two more homes would be affordable. The allowance in my area is set to rise by just £10, but the report found that local housing allowance would need to increase by £225 a month to allow people to afford the cheapest 30% of homes in Bedford. These barriers must be removed, and the stigma attached to homelessness that leads to hostile policies must end if we are to stop such practices. We require a long-term, common-sense strategy, a radical and progressive approach to social housing, and an end to piecemeal funding to give children, families, individuals what is surely a basic human right: a safe and decent place to live.

Ruth Jones: I am grateful for being called to speak in this incredibly important debate. Parliamentarians must grapple with many vital issues,  but none is more important than the safety and welfare of the people we represent up and down the country. We cannot and should not forget that the national shame of high and rising homelessness is a direct result of decisions made Conservative Ministers. The past decade of Tory austerity has seen a steep drop in investment in affordable homes, crude cuts to housing benefit, reduced funding for homelessness services and a lack of action to help private renters.
Those on the Government Benches like to make reference to the last Labour Government, so I will as well. We need to remember that the last Labour Government inherited high and rising homelessness in 1997, after 18 years of the Conservative party being in government, and took decisive action to turn that Tory legacy around. It did not happen overnight, but Labour’s action led to what Crisis and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation have called an “unprecedented” decline in homeless in the 13 years of good Labour government.
In contrast to our legacy in government, homelessness has dramatically increased under the Tories since 2010. We must do whatever we can to end the scourge of homelessness, and we must all be genuinely committed to taking action and addressing the disgrace that is homelessness. I pledge to play my part, on behalf of all the people in Newport West, to right this wrong. I volunteer at a local night shelter, Eden Gate, in Newport West. I do not do it for political reasons—most definitely not; like many other people I do it because we cannot walk by on the other side. We cannot continue to see people reduced to seeking shelter and somewhere to sleep in doorways, parks and other public places, and then turn away and do nothing. I encourage all colleagues in this House to think about volunteering at their local night shelters; the stories and experiences of people they will meet there will inspire, sadden and amaze all those who find time to do it. I will continue to volunteer until we see clear, emphatic and coherent leadership from this Government. The time to act came a long time ago, but we have a chance to act now—and act we must.

Alex Cunningham: Homelessness is a crisis and it has been a growing crisis under successive Tory-Lib Dem and Tory Governments in the past 10 years. Members from across the House have articulated well the causes of and potential solutions to that crisis, none more so than my hon. Friends the Members for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) and for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare), who made their maiden speeches this afternoon. My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead was right to praise the feminist socialist Teresa Pearce, who once honoured me by calling me “sister”. My hon. Friend spoke of her Ghanaian heritage and the fact that she was told that she would never make it in politics. Clearly the message bearer did not have quite the measure of the lady who is sitting behind me today. My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead is representing the place he calls home, where he was born. It had been 40 years since somebody from Birkenhead had made a first speech in this place, and he was right to praise Frank Field and his work in tackling poverty. No one can speak with authority better than people who work with homeless people. I am sure that my hon. Friend will bring great knowledge to future housing debates.
The hon. Member for Gravesham (Adam Holloway) said that homelessness was a health problem and that people should not give to beggars as the vast majority of them buy drugs with the money. I disagree. He is right that the failure of all manner of services is to blame, but it is under his Government that they have collapsed.

Alex Cunningham: Health is of course an element, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that the most recent Labour Government, which left government in 2010, had almost eradicated homelessness, but we now see increase upon increase upon increase. Members have talked about the number of people who are dying homeless. Yes, we need to tackle all these things, and it is not all to do with drugs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield also talked about how the reduction in benefits has affected homelessness, along with the reduction in funding for hostels and, of course, the lack of new social housing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) talked about rough sleeping being the most visible form of homelessness—and don’t we know it? Every day that I walk into this place and every night that I leave, I see them in Westminster station, and if I walk along the way I see them there, too. I do not see any of them shooting up, to be perfectly honest.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) talked about no properties being affordable when people depend on the local housing allowance. There is just insufficient income for them to pay their rent. He talked about the need for a robust measure of homelessness, and said that such measures appear to be a state secret, because the Government will not tell us how they measure homelessness. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) agreed with that, and went on to name young people who are dying on our streets—on the streets of his constituency.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) talked about the collapse of social care and mental health services, which has meant that people are not getting the support they need. Like others, he praised the charities and other organisations that work with homeless people. We could list 20, 30, 40 or 50 of them, as they were probably named in this debate and in previous debates, but, of course, they all need one very important thing, which is resources.
My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) talked about the hidden homelessness of families in temporary accommodation, highlighting the fact that 700 people in her area live in temporary accommodation, but they do not have that specific accommodation in the area where they should have it, which is in their home town. She also talked about the stress caused to children who actually end up living well away from their schools, and have to struggle to get there.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) talked about homelessness being a direct result of the decision-making of the Conservative Government and also that lack of support to help private renters. I just hope that, tonight, we have a Government prepared to listen to my hon. Friends and to those on the Conservative Benches who share our concerns over failure and inaction. Knowing that there are thousands of children out there without a home to call their own should keep us awake at night. It is easy to play the blame game, which successive Governments have done, particularly over the past decade, but it is time that the Government took some responsibility for their failure.
In 1997, Labour took action to tackle homelessness, and we achieved what organisations such as Crisis and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation have called an “unprecedented” decline in homelessness. I can only conclude that, after nearly 10 years of Conservative-Lib Dem and Conservative Governments, this has never been, and still is not, a priority of this Government. Homelessness has dramatically increased since 2010 on   every measure. No matter how the Minister tries to spin it, the Government have failed and they will continue to fail until they start taking tough action to tackle what is a tough issue. They will spout chosen statistics such as rough sleeping falling last year by 2%—2%! Can Members believe that we almost had the Secretary of State boasting that that was some form of success? It is a small drop that can be accounted for by a range of reasons that have nothing to do with Government action. The number of rough sleepers on the streets has more than doubled since 2010, but that is not a slight change. It can therefore be directly attributed to Government inaction on tackling homelessness and the devastating cuts to local authority services.
Despite the funding the Government have thrown at homelessness, it is not enough to fill the funding hole that they have created. We know all too well that it is not simply about getting people off the streets, incredibly important as that is. It is about all the other things that can lead to people becoming homeless: income; private renting; tenants’ rights; social care; local authority funding and resource; and mental health. They are all areas with fundamental problems that the Government have simply not done enough to address.
The Secretary of State spoke about a death being a sobering reminder of what we face today, but there have been an increasing number of deaths over the past 10 years under his Government, and we have still not had the action that is necessary. If they do not take action, the problems will not get fewer, they will grow and then they will take even more resources to address.
I met representatives of AKT—formerly known as the Albert Kennedy Trust—last year. I also met some young LGBT people who had difficulties with housing. House sharing can be more difficult for a young LGBT person. They may have experienced a family breakdown, which forces them to leave their family home, yet support from cash-strapped local authorities is limited for such people—if it exists at all. None the less, we cannot let it just be a case of handing out some cash in the hope that the homelessness crisis can get better.
We need strategic and concentrated efforts to ensure that housing works for everyone in this country: for young adults who currently spend two thirds of their income on rent; LGBT people who may have experienced family breakdown and need secure housing; veterans coming out of the armed forces, who may have little support in getting back into daily life, including getting a roof over their head; older people who need housing suited to reduced mobility, particularly some help to make it easier for them to downsize if they want to; survivors of domestic violence who feel that they have nowhere safe to live if they leave an abusive partner; children who should not be living in B&Bs or temporary accommodation after temporary accommodation; and lower-income families who need the grounding of a family home, so that they can get on in life. Right now, I do not really know what the Government are doing for these groups. You have to up your game, Secretary of State. We need solutions to this crisis, and we look forward to you finding them.

Luke Hall: I thank the Opposition for bringing this debate to the House   today. On the whole, we have had a constructive debate in which we have talked about many of the issues facing homeless people and rough sleepers in this country.
I congratulate the two Members who made their maiden speeches today. The hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) made a passionate speech about her journey to this place. It was incredible to hear that her careers adviser told her not to bother even applying for a job in the House of Commons; I am sure that he will be hanging his head and wondering what sort of advice he is giving. The hon. Member gave us an incredible tour of her constituency; I would be delighted to take up her offer of chips in the Frying Pan in Belvedere. Of course, I am happy to meet her to discuss homelessness in her constituency as well.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) started by paying tribute to his predecessor, and I join him in that. Frank Field was an excellent Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, and a fantastic advocate for working across the House. I hope that the hon. Member will follow his predecessor in that regard.
In 2020, it is unacceptable for anybody to have to sleep rough, particularly at a time of year when those on the streets are enduring sub-zero temperatures, on top of the enormous strains being placed on their physical and mental health. I do not have too much time, so I want to start by putting on record that the cold weather fund that we have doubled this year, and extended by a further £3 million, is still open and available for people to apply. I am around if any colleagues want to speak to me about how to apply for this fund, and would be delighted to have those conversations.
A number of colleagues, including the hon. Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) and for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), have put on record their concern about deaths of homeless people on the streets. Every premature death of someone who is homeless is one too many. We take this matter extremely seriously, and are working closely with the Health Secretary to ensure that rough sleepers get the health and care support they need. That is why, as part of the rough sleeping strategy, the Government have committed £30 million of NHS England funding to address rough sleeping over the next five years.

Lindsay Hoyle: We now come to the announcement of the results for the election of Select Committee Chairs. The results for Chairs who were unopposed were announced on Monday and the election for the contested votes were held by secret ballot today. Five hundred and eighty-six ballot papers were submitted. The results are as follows:

  

I congratulate colleagues who have been elected and thank all the candidates for taking part. The full breakdown of voting in each contest is set out in the paper that will be available shortly from the Vote Office and on the website. The Members elected take up their positions formally when the Committee has been nominated by the House.

David Lammy: I am very grateful to have the opportunity to have the Adjournment debate this evening.
Mr Speaker, you may not know that Seven Sisters tube station in my constituency has about 3 million people visitors every year. Mr Speaker, I can tell that you are aghast. That is because it is the home of Tottenham Hotspur and people arriving to see them often come through the station. It is very much the gateway to my constituency.
Wards Corner is part of that gateway. It is the first building that people see on exiting Seven Sisters tube station. In the year of my birth, 1972, the former Edwardian department store was left abandoned. Soon it fell into a state of disrepair and throughout my childhood and teenage years, the space remained unused. It was not until the early 2000s, when new arrivals came to Tottenham—from Peru, Honduras, El Salvador, Brazil and other countries across South America—that it became lively again. Many had fled chaos and upheaval at home, but in Wards Corner, they spotted an opportunity to build a new home out of the disused space.
Stepping inside the Latin Village that they created is like entering a whole different world. Inside is a magical maze of shops, food stalls, barbershops and nail bars. Salsa and Spanish music vibrate the shelves of groceries. Kids run excitedly though the aisles. Men and women sit and chat, sipping strong Colombian coffee. The smell of Argentinian meat, freshly made empanadas and tamales is impossible to resist.
As day becomes night, the aisles fill up with young couples, groups of friends and families sitting down at tables to eat. The volume of the sound system is turned up. Beers imported from South America are passed round. People chat, their faces illuminated by fairy lights and the hues of shop fronts. Couples dance. Out of the rubble, Tottenham’s South American community has created a treasure trove of culture, community, love and life. London is often hailed as a centre of openness, diversity and multiculturalism; this is a corner of the capital that lives up to the hype.

David Lammy: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point in the way he did. He knows something about what it means to be excluded and excluded communities, and he is right that I will come to that. I know that those listening to the debate will be very grateful that he and others have taken interest.
Today, the Latin Village hosts the United Kingdom’s second largest concentration of Latin American businesses. Around 60—mostly female—traders run businesses in the Latin Village, providing a living for some 80 families, but for those who work and shop and have even grown up in the plywood jungle, the market represents so much more than a pay cheque.
Tottenham has witnessed two riots in my lifetime: in 1985 and 2011. Its current challenges, including London’s knife and gang-crime epidemic, are well known. In that context, the Latin market is a vital space, where social belonging is promoted and a sense of collective identity is built. Across families and generations, residents rely on the village as a safe and inclusive space for socialising and raising their families. It is a thriving model of community wealth creation, of affordable and effective childcare, and of inter-generational bonding. The demolition of Wards Corner represents a very real threat to that social cohesion. For many, it could mean the end of their way of life.
Almost everyone accepts that Wards Corner would benefit from investment, but at present, there are two competing visions of its future. The first redevelopment plan is that of Grainger plc, which was selected as a development partner by Haringey Council in 2004. In 2012, the council granted Grainger plc planning and conservation area consent for the redevelopment of the Wards Corner site. It sets out a blueprint to build 196 new luxury flats—with no allocation for social or affordable units—and a new retail and leisure space. Just six commercial units will be allocated to independent stores. The rest will be filled with generic coffee shops and chain restaurants—a world away from the vibrant and unique stalls inside the market. In addition, it was agreed that the Seven Sisters market, including Latin Village, would be temporarily relocated, before getting a new site on the other side of the road.
However, planning documents show that the new market will come with a dramatic increase of rent—effectively locking out the traders and family businesses that make up Latin Village. For the first five years there will be a 2% cap on rent increases, but after that, rents will be subject to the market. Traders have estimated that that could mean a rent increase of up to 300%.
UN human rights experts have already condemned the scheme, calling it
“a gentrification project”
that
“represents a threat to cultural life”.
Traders could be forced to shut up shop, families may have to look for new incomes and the jewel of Latin Village could shatter and ultimately be swept away.
The second vision for the future of Wards Corner is the “community plan”, proposed in a planning application to the council by the West Green Road and Seven Sisters Development Trust. Earlier versions of the community plan have had planning permission, but you would not know that from the public statements of Haringey Council, Transport for London or the developer. The community plan outlines a vision for a high-quality,  tasteful restoration of the Wards Corner building to its former glory and its use as a community asset and space, rather than demolition of the Wards Corner department store building. The plan says:
“We believe that it is not necessary to demolish existing historic assets or to dislocate an entire community that has lived and worked on the site for a generation and more. We regard restoration as a more sustainable form of regeneration, building as it does on already existing community assets. Top-down, developer-led regeneration is not the only way.”
The redevelopment of Wards Corner is a local issue in Tottenham, but it is part of a national, and even global, story. We have heard it so many times, in so many different places. Migrants turn a run-down space into a cultural and business centre, but then a corporate entity threatens to take it away. The questions it raises are the same in Tottenham as they are in Glasgow, just as they are the same in the Bronx. When a deprived area is “redeveloped”, are we not meant to improve the lives of deprived people who already live there? Why does it take an influx of wealthy new people to an area before anyone bothers to invest in it? Should we not bring the existing communities along with the redevelopment, rather than kick them out? Is the purpose of redevelopment social cohesion or social cleansing?
The traders who depend on Latin Village have been treated with gross disrespect and a lack of compassion throughout this process. The firm Quarterbridge was appointed the “market facilitator”—a supposedly independent body responsible for looking after traders’ interests during the redevelopment. However, the director of Quarterbridge, Jonathan Owen, is also the director of Market Asset Management. How can the market manager be the same man as the market facilitator? The very person who is supposed to stand up for the Latin Village’s market traders has an interest in the new development’s going ahead. Jonathan Owen has made his conflict of interest very clear, by adding insult to injury of those he is supposed to protect. Owen has used phrases such as “bloody illegal immigrants” and declared that, “If I wanted to I could get rid of 90% of the traders here”. When traders asked whether drains could be cleared, he replied, “When was the last time you cleared the drains in your house?”
Jonathan Owen and Quarterbridge were chosen and paid for by Transport for London. They were supposed to look out for the traders. Transport for London should have done proper due diligence when awarding the lease. If traders had experienced even a fraction of the racism and bullying that they have had to endure while on the platform of Seven Sisters station, Transport for London would have acted. However, moments away in the market, on land owned by Transport for London, there has been deflection and inaction when blatant acts of discrimination have taken place. This is not acceptable. Jonathan Owen, Quarterbridge and Market Asset Management must now be fired and sent packing from the market. There needs to be a thorough review into why this level of unacceptable conduct has been allowed to carry on over such a long and sustained period on public land without Transport for London having done anything meaningful to stop it. There also needs to be an investigation into the very serious allegations of overcharging of traders for electricity and other utilities by the market operator—allegations that might amount to fraud and which ought to require police involvement.
Haringey Council has technically given the community plan permission to go ahead, but at the same time it says there is no way for the Grainger plc plan to be stopped. The council’s housing and regeneration scrutiny panel undertook a thorough review, which lasted several months and heard evidence from traders, council officers, Transport for London, Grainger, Quarterbridge, architects, experts and academics. For the first time in years, traders at the market felt listened to. It was a model of good overview and scrutiny work.
Last week, however, the cabinet of Haringey Council rejected eight, partially agreed with three and fully agreed with just three of the 14 recommendations made by its own scrutiny panel on the redevelopment. The council maintains that some of the recommendations were simply not within its remit. I spoke to the council about this just this week. The recommendations it rejected, however, included recommendation 5, which calls for a review of how all section 106 conditions are monitored and enforced in order to make sure that people with protected characteristics are protected under equalities legislation.
An investigation undertaken by Haringey Council’s own planning department into section 106 concluded that it indeed was breached and that the council should have known and should have acted earlier. In addition, when the compulsory purchase order was granted by the department, the planning inspector, John Felgate, gave an “erroneous interpretation” of Grainger’s commitment to guarantee the traders’ rent. The report suggested that traders’ rents should be guaranteed to rise by no more than 2% per year indefinitely. In reality, this guarantee only holds for five years. Given these issues, does the Minister maintain that the CPO is still valid?
Other recommendations rejected by the Haringey Council cabinet include the recommendation to
“explore the feasibility and cost benefits of all approaches for a full or partial buy-out”.
This means not giving the community plan a chance. Worse still, the council even rejected the recommendation to work with Grainger plc and relevant community groups to co-ordinate a combined solution. Surely that is wrong. How can we bring partners together, how can people sit down with traders, with the council, with Grainger, to broker a solution that all of us can get behind?
We say we are on the side of the many, not the few. We should not be sending enforcement officers to hassle family traders. When a Labour council rightly talks about putting people before profit, that means being led by the voices of the communities, not developers. Some of the evictions we have seen just this week are a scandal and have caused real concern in the constituency. That is how people in my constituency have been treated by what has been called the first “Corbyn council”. We cannot claim to do housing differently and then simply do it in the same way. Due process matters. Proper scrutiny and accountability matter. Standing up to racism, bullying and victimisation in all their ugly forms matters.
The good thing for Haringey Council, TFL and this Government is that it is not too late. There is still time to do the right thing. All it will take is swallowing some pride and applying simple principles that should have been followed from the start. It means recognising the huge cultural and social value of the Latin Village,  investing in the traders who created it and taking their plans for its redevelopment seriously. I want to see the market operator got rid of, properly investigated and, if applicable, met with the full force of the law. I want to see the community plan for the market given proper and active consideration as a viable part of a new vision for Wards Corner. I want the Minister’s help to facilitate as a matter of urgency independently chaired roundtable discussions at which the market traders are treated as equals and genuinely listened to, so that a better future can be shaped for the site, with them at the heart of decisions on what happens next.
If Grainger’s development is what goes ahead, at the very least it needs to make some serious compromises. First, given the housing crisis, it is outrageous that there is no provision for social housing. A new minimum quota of 10% should be introduced. Secondly, there must be a large increase in the number of spaces for independent traders. We cannot allow Wards Corner to become another clone high street. Thirdly, the five-year rent increase cap is not good enough. There is no point in preserving Latin Village for half a decade only to let it collapse later. Let us introduce a review at the end of that period to decide whether to extend or change the cap.
It would be a great failure if Tottenham were to become just another story of gentrification, with locals pushed out as wealthy investors come in, and culture bulldozed and replaced by clone high streets—if it were to become another deprived community that is not invested in, but pushed further away. Let Wards Corner instead become an example of how we can do regeneration better: bottom-up, not top-down, and with investment for the community that is based there, not in spite of it. Let us have a new future for Tottenham that does not demolish the past.
The Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), would have liked to be here this evening. He has met people in the Latin Village, and he too says that he stands with the Latin Village community to protect the market. It is a place of community identity that gives more than 60 independent traders a livelihood. Their struggle, he says, is his struggle, and I associate myself with his remarks. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

Esther McVey: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) on securing the debate. I know that this matter is of great importance to him and to those associated with Seven Sisters market.
Given the time limit, I may not be able to address every issue that has been raised. I should also make it clear that, for reasons that I will explain in more detail, I cannot comment freely on the regeneration of Wards Corner, and in particular the Secretary of State’s decision to confirm the Wards Corner compulsory purchase order. I know that the right hon. Gentleman, as an experienced Member of the House, will understand that, as there is an application to the Court of Appeal in respect of the High Court ruling upholding the Secretary of State’s decision to confirm the CPO, it is simply not possible for me to discuss the details and the application, as to do so might prejudice those judicial review proceedings.  The matter was lodged with the Court of Appeal just before Christmas, and it may be a number of months before it is known whether permission will be given for it to be subject to those further proceedings. I therefore presume that the right hon. Gentleman considered it more important to put his concerns on the record than to hear anything that I might be able to say, and in that context I commend him for making those points. Let me emphasise, however, that the Government take the issue of regeneration and the role of planning extremely seriously. With that in mind, I will explain the background to and the Government’s involvement in the Wards Comer CPO, leading up to the application to the Court of Appeal. I will then place that in the context of the Government’s view on the use of CPO powers.
In September 2016, the London Borough of Haringey made the Wards Corner CPO to enable it to acquire 9 hectares compulsorily to facilitate the comprehensive regeneration of the land known as Wards Corner, for which it had previously granted planning permission for a mixed-use development. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the council made a robust case to the inquiry that the scheme would act as a catalyst for the local community by bringing an injection of new investment, higher order retail activity, an improved Seven Sisters market, and more and higher quality jobs. The overall investment in terms of construction cost alone was estimated at about £60 million. It is forecast that during the construction phase the development will provide 190 full-time equivalent direct jobs, and that once it has been completed a further 95 direct jobs will deliver £4.8 million per year in gross value added. The scheme will also support further spin-off jobs indirectly.
The CPO was submitted to the Secretary of State for confirmation. Following the receipt of public objections to it, a public local inquiry was arranged in July 2017. The community and the market traders themselves played a full and active part in the CPO process and in the public inquiry. An independent inquiry inspector heard oral submissions on behalf of the market traders’ group and other interested parties. The public inquiry inspector returned his findings and recommendation to the Secretary of State in January 2018, and just over a year ago the Secretary of State issued his decision to confirm the CPO.
That would normally end the Secretary of State’s formal involvement, but as I am pretty sure the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the Secretary of State’s decision was then challenged in the courts. The case was heard by the High Court in October 2019, and judgment was handed down in two days. The claim was dismissed and the judge refused leave to appeal the decision. I cannot interpret on the judgment, but I should say that, overall, the judge was not persuaded that a genuine doubt existed as to the approach adopted by the inspector and therefore the Secretary of State in his decision, on the issues of affordability and the public sector equality duty of concern to the claimants.
That was not the end of the matter, and litigation has continued. Following the High Court judgment, the claimant lodged an application to the Court of Appeal. As yet, there has been no word on whether the application has been accepted and it might be several months before it is known whether the fresh appeal will get  permission to be heard at that next tier of the judicial system. Therefore, while the Government welcomed the judgment made in the High Court, the council must again wait to see whether it can take forward the order that will enable the proposals on much-needed regeneration for the area to proceed.
I would now like to set out the wider purpose of the CPO process and its role in enabling and supporting the regeneration of communities such as those in Tottenham. Successive Governments have supported compulsory purchase as an important tool to assemble land into a single ownership to enable the delivery of a wide range of development projects. Used properly, compulsory purchase can enable the development of new communities, essential social infrastructure and commercial facilities, all of which can support economic growth, regeneration and improvements in quality of life. It enables the acquisition of land and property in the public interest without the agreement of the owner, subject to the payment of fair compensation. While land can be acquired by agreement between the parties concerned, such voluntary approaches are unlikely to be suitable for assembling all the land needed for major projects because some owners might not agree to sell their land, or might ask an unreasonably high price. Local authorities and others are empowered to use compulsory purchase powers to deliver a wide range of projects, from large-scale town centre regeneration schemes to the refurbishment of individual empty homes.
To use compulsory purchase powers, an acquiring authority must first make a CPO and submit it to the relevant Minister to decide whether to confirm it. The acquiring authority must notify all qualifying persons, including the relevant owners and occupiers. The CPO is advertised through newspapers and site notices to notify the general public. Remaining objectors to the CPO have the right to object and be heard at a public local inquiry. An inspector’s task is to inquire into the CPO and to elicit all the information needed to enable the Minister to decide whether to confirm the CPO. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the CPO process provides ample opportunity for all interested parties to be fully, properly and fairly involved in the process.
The inspector will then prepare and submit their report to the Minister, including their recommendation on whether the CPO should be confirmed. The Minister will then carefully consider the inspector’s report and decide whether to confirm, modify or not confirm the CPO. In deciding whether to confirm the CPO, the Minister is acting in a quasi-judicial capacity. In exercising this function, it is incumbent upon the Minister to act and to been seen to act fairly and even-handedly. A CPO will be confirmed only when the Minister is satisfied that the order contributes to the economic, social and environmental wellbeing of an area. The Minister must also be satisfied that there is a compelling case in the public interest to justify interfering with the human rights of those with an interest in the land affected by the CPO. In making the decision, the Minister must also have due regard to the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010.

David Lammy: The Minister is setting out the rules that govern CPOs and am grateful for that. However, would she be worried if a local authority and others were  engaging in evictions while the CPO is still being challenged in the courts to get people out of the building, or using false pretences regarding the state of the building to get the building vacated so that they can proceed as they desire?